Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV02144, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02144    Hearing Date: December 13, 2023    Dept: I

The motion to set aside default is DENIED.  In addition to not being served properly, the moving papers show no excuse or good faith action by the defense.  Rather, defendant seemed to be fully aware of the default and the fact that it would be entered.  Defendant appears to have elected not to answer as a matter of tactics, not error or excusable neglect.  Absent some showing of excusable neglect, the court is left with the strong feeling that defendant’s motive is delay.  He obtained the delay, but the price is default.  If defendant wants to try again before judgment is entered, he may do so, but he has to explain why he allowed default to be entered and then seemingly reneged from the settlement to which he had agreed.  In the interim, the court will sign any proper judgment lodged.  The court orders the proposed judgment to be placed back in the queue.  It will be signed in due course if it is proper. 

The court notes that it believes that the rules on setting aside defaults must be read in the context of the UD statutory rules.  The Legislature has deemed that UD actions proceed along a rocket docket.  Allowing a party to go into default and then move to vacate as a tactical matter would defeat the speedy trial provisions that the Legislature enacted, unlike a regular case, which often takes well over a year to get to trial.  The prejudice of delay to the plaintiff is more palpable in the UD context.  That said, if there is excusable neglect, there is excusable neglect, and the rules regarding setting aside defaults will be in full play.  The point is that where it appears that the choice to take a default was deliberate, the calculus shifts.