Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV01065, Date: 2025-01-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01065    Hearing Date: January 7, 2025    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           DM Properties LLC v. Robertson, et al.

CASE NO.:                22SMCV01065

MOTION:                  Motion for Relief from Terminating Sanctions and Entry of Judgement

HEARING DATE:   1/7/25

Legal Standard

Relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) is either discretionary or mandatory. Where a party cannot obtain an attorney affidavit of fault, the party may seek discretionary relief under section 473(b) due to “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (CCP § 473(b).) A motion for discretionary relief must be made “within a reasonable time but in no instance exceeding six months after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Id.) If discretionary relief is granted, the court may in its discretion order the moving party to pay the costs, including attorney fees, incurred in obtaining the default. (Rogalski v. Nabers Cadillac (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 816, 823; Vanderkous v. Conley (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 111, 118-119.) If the motion for discretionary relief is granted, the court may order the offending attorney to pay monetary sanctions up to $1,000 to opposing parties, or up to $1,000 to the State Bar Client Security Fund, or “[g]rant other relief as is appropriate.” (CCP § 473(c)(1)(A), (B), (C).)

The party seeking relief under section 473 on the basis of mistake, inadvertence, or neglect must demonstrate that such mistake, inadvertence, or neglect was excusable. (Younessi v. Woolf (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1146.) A moving party’s mistake, inadvertence, or neglect is excusable if a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances might have made the same error. (Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 918, 929.) 

A motion for relief under section 473(b) “shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted. . .” (CCP § 473(b).) However, this requirement is not jurisdictional; substantial compliance may suffice. (Carmel, Ltd. v. Tavoussi (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 393, 403 [finding substantial compliance where counsel offered proposed answer at motion hearing rather than serving it with moving papers].) 

Analysis

Defendant, Daryll Robertson dba Blueprint Builders’ (“Defendant”) moves to vacate the order granting terminating sanctions and entry of judgment. Defendant claims that terminating sanctions were imposed and judgment was entered due to mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §473(b).

            Defendant cites no cognizable “mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect” under section 473. Defendant claims neglect by Defendant’s former counsel. Defendant explains that counsel failed to tender this matter to Defendant’s insurance carrier in August 2022. Defendant claims that upon falling into hard financial times, he was unable to afford counsel and forced to represent himself in this action. Aside from financial hardship, Defendant also notes that he was recovering from spinal surgery and could not walk from March 2023 through January 2024. (Robertson Decl., ¶ 5.) This also exacerbated his financial hardship. (¶ 6.) Even accepting these facts at face value, Defendant cites no authority holding that this is a type of “neglect” or “mistake” of counsel that would justify vacation of entry of judgment, or the underlying terminating sanctions order. Counsel’s mistake did not directly cause Defendant to commit discovery abuse or ignore motions to compel responses.

Critically, the Court did not sanction and enter judgment against Defendant due to excusable mistake. Instead, the court issued sanctions due to Defendant’s willful discovery abuse. In fact, Defendant’s declaration confirms that he willfully disregarded the discovery and, indeed, the entire proceeding until after sanctions were entered. (Robertson Decl., ¶¶ 7-10.)  Defendant admits that Plaintiff duly served him notice at each step along the way, but he was of “the mistaken belief that such had to be personally served in order to be valid.” (Id.) While Defendant may have made a mistake of law, such a mistake is not excusable under these facts. “A party proceeding¿in propria persona¿‘is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater[,] consideration than other¿litigants¿and attorneys.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell¿(1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 985; see Gamet v. Blanchard¿(2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284-1285 [self-represented litigants are not exempt from statutes or court rules governing procedure].) Moreover, Robertson does not explain why or how he came to such a misunderstanding. Thus, based on the entirety of the record, the Court does not find Robertson’s mistake to be an honest mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.