Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 24SMCV02632, Date: 2025-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV02632    Hearing Date: June 12, 2025    Dept: I

The motion to vacate the default is DENIED.  Defendant argues that he is self represented and did not know he had to answer.  As a result, he did not answer and now there is a judgment against him.  The court has trouble with that.  On December 3, 2024, the court held a hearing.  Defendant was present at that hearing.  The court specifically told the defendant that he had to answer or he would be in default.  The court told him that default would likely be entered if he did not answer in 5 days.  Defendant expressed no confusion as to what the court was saying or what his duty was. 

The problem that the court has is simply this.  Having taken the time personally to explain to defendant that he needed to answer and telling plaintiff not to get a default until defendant had a chance to file an answer, it is hard for the court to understand why it is that defendant now claims that he did not understand that he had to answer.  Had the court not held that hearing and explained the situation to the defendant, defendant’s argument would have a lot more heft.  But defendant’s failure to deal with the issue—even on reply—leads the court to question whether defendant’s statements are accurate.  The court will discuss this at the hearing, but it seems more like defendant, having understood his options, deliberately chose to take the default, either as a matter of bad judgment or delay.  But it is hard to see that it was based on confusion or excusable error.