Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC01878, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC01878    Hearing Date: March 4, 2024    Dept: 26

State Farm v. Morales, et al.

VACATE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(CCP § 473(b))

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Rudy Sanchez Morales’ Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On March 22, 2023, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Rudy Sanchez Morales (“Defendant”). Following Defendant’s failure to respond, the Court entered default on June 13, 2023 and default judgment on August 7, 2023.

Defendant filed the instant motion to vacate the default and default judgment on February 2, 2024. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

Defendant first moves to vacate the entry of default and default judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128 but provides no analysis or additional authority regarding the statute. (Motion, p. 4:6-10.) Then the Motion cites Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), which states that an application for relief must be made within a reasonable time, no more than six months after entry of the order from which relief is sought and must be accompanied by an affidavit of fault attesting to the mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect of the moving party or its attorney. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b); English v. IKON Business Solutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.) The motion must also be accompanied by a copy of the moving defendant’s proposed pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)

The instant Motion was not timely filed. First, where the statute requires that “ ‘ “the application must be made within a ‘reasonable time’ … what is a reasonable time in any case depends upon the circumstances of that particular case.” While in “the determination of that question, a large discretion is necessarily confided to [the trial] court” ... there must be some showing—some evidence—as the basis for the exercise of such discretion.’ ” (Caldwell v. Methodist Hospital (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1521, 1524 [citing Carrasco v. Craft (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 796, 805].) The Motion does not address why filing a motion eight months after entry of default and five months after default judgment should be considered reasonable. Second, even if only the six-month deadline were to apply, the Motion remains untimely because it was filed more than six months after entry of default. (See Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980.) Also, the six-month deadline is jurisdictional and not subject to tolling. (Manson, Iver & York v. Black (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 36, 42.)

Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant Rudy Sanchez Morales’ Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.