Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC04782, Date: 2024-06-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STLC04782 Hearing Date: June 5, 2024 Dept: 26
Rodriguez v. Lopez, et al.
VACATE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT
(CCP § 473(b), 473(d), equity)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Leonardo M. Lopez, Trustee, of the Leonardo M.
Lopez and Iris Lopez Living Trust Dated November 7, 1996 et. al.’s Motion to
Vacate Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED.
DEFENDANT IS TO FILE AND SERVE THE PROPOSED VERIFIED ANSWER
WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.
ANALYSIS:
On August 1, 2023, Plaintiff James Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”)
filed the instant action against Defendant Leonardo M. Lopez, Trustee, of the
Leonardo M. Lopez and Iris Lopez Living Trust Dated November 7, 1996 et. al. (“Defendant”).
Following Defendant’s failure to file a responsive pleading, Plaintiff filed a
request for entry of default on August 18, 2023. Defendant then filed an answer
on the next day, August 19, 2023, which was accepted for filing by the clerk’s
office.
The Court held an early evaluation conference on March 5,
2024, at which attorneys for both parties appeared and there was no mention of
the entry of default. (Minute Order, 03/05/24.) The conference was then
continued to May 20, 2024. (Ibid.) Plaintiff then filed a request for
default judgment that was entered on April 24, 2024.
Defendant filed the instant Motion to Vacate Default and
Default Judgment on May 2, 2024. Plaintiff filed an opposition on May 6, 2024
and Defendant replied on May 22, 2024.
Discussion
Defendant moves to vacate the entry of default and default
judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), section
473, subdivision (d), or on equitable grounds.
Relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473,
subdivision (b) is unavailable because the application for relief must be made
no more than six months after entry of the order from which relief is sought,
in this case, the entry of default on October 18, 2023. The Motion was filed on
May 2, 2024, which was past the six-month deadline.
Relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473,
subdivision (d) is also unavailable because the Motion does not demonstrate
that the entry of default was void or due to a clerical error. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 473, subd. (d) [“The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or
its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered,
so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of
either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or
order.”]
The Court, however, finds relief is availing on equitable
grounds in this case. To qualify for equitable relief based on
extrinsic mistake, which exists when circumstances extrinsic to the litigation
have unfairly cost a party a hearing on the merits, the defendant must
demonstrate: (1) “a meritorious case”; (2) “a satisfactory excuse for not
presenting a defense to the original action”; and (3) “diligence in seeking to
set aside the default once the fraud [or mistake] had been discovered.” (Mechling
v. Asbestos Defendants (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1241, 1245-1246 (citing In
re Marriage of Stevenot (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1051, 1071).)
Here, Defendant declares that he was not served with the
action and only learned of the request for entry of default on October 19, 2023.
(Motion, Lopez Decl., ¶2.) Defendant notified defense counsel immediately and
defense counsel sought to file an answer with the Court. (Motion, Murray III
Decl., ¶4.) Although defense counsel saw that the request for entry of default
had been filed, it had not yet been entered at the time the answer was filed. (Id.
at ¶4.) Defendant’s answer was accepted for filing by the clerk’s office, as
reflected in the docket. Defense counsel forwarded the answer to Plaintiff’s
counsel and indicated that it was unclear if default had been entered. (Id.
at ¶7 and Exh. B.)
Five months later, the Court held an early evaluation
conference on March 5, 2024. (Minute Order, 03/05/24.) Despite attorneys for
both parties appearing, Plaintiff’s counsel did not inform either the Court or
defense counsel that Defendant was in default. Nor does it appear that
Plaintiff’s counsel ever responded to defense counsel’s communication from
October 2023 to clarify that default had in fact been entered. Instead,
Plaintiff filed a request for default judgment on April 18, 2024 (conveniently
181 days after entry of default), which was entered the following week. By
failing to inform defense counsel that a default had been entered at any point
prior to filing and serving the request for default judgment, it appears
Plaintiff’s counsel intended to make it impossible for Defendant to seek relief
from the entry of default under Code of Civil Procedure section 473,
subdivision (b), which consequently also bars a challenge to the default
judgment under the same statute, as Plaintiff’s opposition points out. By
relying on defense counsel’s confusion caused by the acceptance of the answer
prior to entry of default, Plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct unfairly deprived
Defendant of a hearing on the merits. Upon learning of the default judgment,
Defendant promptly filed the instant Motion, which is supported by a verified
answer to the Complaint.
Conclusion
Defendant Leonardo M. Lopez, Trustee, of the Leonardo M.
Lopez and Iris Lopez Living Trust Dated November 7, 1996 et. al.’s Motion to
Vacate Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED.
DEFENDANT IS TO FILE AND SERVE THE PROPOSED VERIFIED ANSWER
WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.
Court clerk to give notice.