Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV23457, Date: 2025-04-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV23457    Hearing Date: April 30, 2025    Dept: 61

NEIL ANENBERG vs ANTONETTE ISHAM, et al. (Commercial)

Tentative

I. MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) states:

The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken . . . . Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney's sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment . . . unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. The court shall, whenever relief is granted based on an attorney's affidavit of fault, direct the attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties.

Defendant Antonette Isham (Defendant) moves for relief from the judgment entered against her following trial on October 25, 2024, on the grounds that she was hospitalized from October 2 through November 28, 2024. (Isham Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.)

The present motion is similar to Defendant’s motion to vacate judgment, granted by this court on September 19, 2024, in which Defendant declared that she had not appeared for trial on August 5, 2024, because she was hospitalized from August 4 through 7, 2024. After Defendant’s motion was granted, trial was continued to October 11, 2024, and continued again to October 25, 2024.

Unlike Defendant’s prior motion, the present motion is not opposed. But this is likely related to the lack of any proof of service attached to Defendant’s motion. Absent proof of such service, the motion cannot be granted.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.