Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 23PDUD03806, Date: 2024-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PDUD03806    Hearing Date: March 5, 2024    Dept: P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

 RAO-HSIEN RAY WU,

 

                                        Plaintiff,

                                  vs.

 

KAREN MURPHY,

 Does 1-3, inclusive,

 

                                         Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 23PDUD03806

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION BY  DEFENDANT TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

 

Date:   March 5, 2024

Time:  8:30 a.m.

Dept.:  P

 

         

          I.        INTRODUCTION

           This case is an unlawful detainer action. Plaintiff Rao Hsein Ray Wu (Wu) alleges that Defendant Karen Murphy (Murphy) failed to pay her monthly rent of $4,000.00 for several months, and has not vacated the premises after receiving a notice to pay rent or quit.

          On January 18, 2024, the Court entered judgment for possession in favor of the plaintiff, on defendant’s default.

          On February 15, 2024, Defendant Murphy filed the instant motion to set aside the default entered against her.

          Pursuant to the reasoning below, the motion is granted.

 

II.       LEGAL STANDARD

CCP Section 657 provides that an order or judgment of the Court may be vacated for a variety of reasons, including “Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial.” (CCP § 657(1).) Additionally, “It is well settled that a judgment or order which is void on its face, and which requires only an inspection of the judgment roll or record to show its invalidity, may be set aside on motion, at any time after its entry, by the court which rendered the judgment or made the order.” (Hayashi v. Lorenz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 848, 851, internal citations omitted.)

 

III.     ANALYSIS

          Here, Defendant Murphy filed a demurrer on December 6, 2023, which was heard and overruled on January 3, 2024. Murphy was given 10 days from receipt of the notice of ruling to file her answer. (1/3/24 Minute Order.) The notice of ruling was served on Murphy on January 4, 2024, by regular US mail, which extends the 10-day deadline by 5 calendar days. (CCP § 1013.)  Therefore, Murphy had until January 19, 2024 to file her answer. Murphy indeed filed her answer to the complaint on January 19, 2024. (1/19/24 Answer.)

          Her default was taken a day earlier, on January 18, 2024. This action of the Court was in error, as Murphy had until the next day, January 19, 2024 to file her answer and indeed did file her answer.

          Accordingly, the motion to set aside the default is GRANTED.

          IV.     CONCLUSION

          The motion to set aside the default is granted. The dismissal entered January 18, 2024, against Defendant Murphy is set aside.  The Court schedules a Trial Setting  Conference for __________, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.  

The Clerk is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.    

 

         

 

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT