Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24STCV00694, Date: 2024-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV00694    Hearing Date: August 16, 2024    Dept: M

Case Name:                Hanaie v. Farazmand, et al.

Case No.:                    24STCV00694

Motion:                      Motions to Set Aside Default Pursuant to Section 473(b)

Hearing Date:            04/08/2021

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) provides for discretionary relief and for mandatory relief, depending on the circumstances.  For mandatory relief, “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, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).).

For discretionary relief, “[t]he 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).) A moving party need only establish “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” by a preponderance of the evidence. (Luz v. Lopes (1960) 55 Cal.2d 54, 62.)  

The law favors judgments based on the merits, not procedural missteps. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly reminded us that in this area doubts must be resolved in favor of relief, with an order denying relief scrutinized more carefully than an order granting it.” (Lasalle v. Vogel (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 127, 134 [emphasis in original].)

Analysis

            Defendants Marjan Farazmand and Madoud Farzmand move separately for relief from their defaulta entered on March 12, 2024.  The motions for relief from default were filed on April 8, 2024, seeking relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) on the basis of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and/or excusable neglect by each defendant.  Defendants each claim that their default was entered because they did not file a responsive pleading to the complaint because they reasonably believed that the Court had extended their response deadline to April 8, 2024, pursuant to a stipulation entered into between plaintiff Joubin Hanaie (“Hanaie”) and co-defendant Reza Farazmand (“R. Farazmand”), which was filed in the related case, 24SMCV00126. Defendants claim that their reliance on the stipulation and order extending R. Farzmand’s deadline to respond in the related case was the result of excusable mistake, surprise, or neglect.

The Court does not believe Defendants reliance on a stipulation entered into between other parties would be reasonable mistake or excusable neglect.  Defendants are not third-party beneficiaries of that stipulation.  Under Defendants’ theory, any time a party stipulated to an extension of time for another party, the remaining parties would be considered third-party beneficiaries of that agreement.  There is no support for that argument in the law. There is also evidence that Defendants failure to enter the case earlier was to either avoid a proposed mediation between the parties in the related case or at least, avoid paying a share of that mediation.  Moreover, their reliance, if any, was not reasonable.  Counsel for Reza Farazmad would have been in contact with Defendants and have forwarded Plaintiff’s intent to enter a default after the due date of February 26, 2024, passed.    

With that said, the Court does believe that discretionary relief should be granted so that Defendants have their day in court.  Therefore, the motion is granted.  The Court will impose the following terms as a condition of discretionary relief.  First, the “draft” answer attached to the declaration shall be filed as the answer within two days.  Second, the Court orders Defendants to pay Plaintiff’s counsel’s reasonable attorney’s fees as a condition of setting aside those defaults.  Those fees are payable within 30 days, and if not paid, defaults will be reinstated.