Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 24SMCV01889, Date: 2024-12-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01889    Hearing Date: December 3, 2024    Dept: I

The motion is GRANTED CONDITIONED ON PAYMENT BY DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF OF $2500 WITHIN 30 DAYS.

Plaintiff filed this breach of contract case against defendant.  Defendant’s default was entered on May 31, 2024.  Defendant now moves to vacate the default.  The motion is opposed.

Preliminarily, the court notes that defense counsel has elected to ignore the Rules of Court regarding formatting, for example, by single-spacing the pleading.  The court will overlook it this time, but in the future, if it is worth doing, it is worth doing right.  If it is not worth doing right, don’t bother.

Turning to the merits, defendant claims excusable neglect.  Such neglect is a valid reason to vacate a default if proven.  Indeed, the law strongly favors granting relief from default where there is no prejudice to the plaintiff.  Defendant’s theory is that the instant case was one of two cases.  The other was an unlawful detainer case.  The underlying issue is that defendant apparently had security cameras focused directly on plaintiff’s home, including the rooms of plaintiff’s children, which allowed defendant to look into their bedrooms and see them in an inappropriate manner.  For reasons unknown, plaintiff elected to dismiss the UD case, and that was accomplished on June 3, 2024.  Defendant states that he thought that the dismissal (which was not the result of a settlement) actually applied to both cases. 

The court, frankly, has trouble believing defendant’s story.  First, when defendant sought to recover costs in the UD case claiming he was the prevailing party, the whole basis of the opposition was that the instant case was still pending, so defendant did not really prevail.  A second problem is that defendant’s lawyer expressly told defendant that the instant case was still pending.  That fact comes from defendant’s own declaration.  Counsel’s statement to defendant occurred on July 24, 2024, and yet this motion was not filed until October 18, 2024.  And in any event, it seems to be inconsistent with defendant’s statement that he believed that both cases were dismissed until he learned of a judgment in the UD case on October 2, 2024.  The whole thing just smells bad.

However, the court remains bound by the notion that the law strongly supports adjudication on the merits.  And while there was some delay, the delay was not super long and plaintiff has identified no prejudice.  The case is in its infancy, and it ought to be decided on the merits.  That said, though, the court can condition the order on such terms as it deems appropriate.  Here, defendant has forced plaintiff to delay resolution of the case and incur fees.  While the court does not know the amount of the fees, the court believes that it is only just to cause defendant to reimburse plaintiff for them.  The court therefore will condition its order on the payment, within 30 days, of $2500 to plaintiff’s counsel, an amount that the court, in its experience, believes is appropriate to compensate plaintiff for the time and energy needed to file the default and the opposition.  The failure to do so will cause the court to deny this motion.

Further, the court would entertain a TRO request from plaintiff to stop defendant from using the cameras to see into plaintiff’s home or to film anything other than the immediate surrounding of defendant’s unit.  The court is not saying it would grant such a request, but the court would at least consider it.

The court is aware that plaintiff will be dissatisfied with this.  However, plaintiff has made a strong showing that defendant is dishonest.  That is information that will likely serve plaintiff quite well in this litigation unless dispelled by the defense.  It is just that this is not the moment for plaintiff to cash in that chip.