Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 24SMUD02351, Date: 2025-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMUD02351    Hearing Date: January 3, 2025    Dept: I

The court has before it defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment.  This is a UD case.  The matter was set for trial scheduled for December 2, 2024.  Proper notice was sent to the defense.  Defendant claims that although he got the notice, he was confused and believed that the trial would be held on December 19, 2024, which was the date set for certain discovery motions.  He contends that this is the reason that he was not present at the trial.  However, because he was not there, the court held an uncontested trial and judgment was entered for the plaintiff.  It is that judgment defendant seeks to avoid.

Plaintiff raises the question why defendant was not in court on December 2, 2024.  Even if the defendant thought that was only a discovery motion hearing, he should have been present.  His failure to be present even at a hearing was reckless, the plaintiff asserts, and justifies denying the motion.  The court is not really convinced by that argument in particular.  There was a motion to compel that was set for December 19, 2024, and that notice was sent to the defense.  True, the notice of the trial was sent after that discovery notice was sent, but the court does not believe it is beyond the bounds of reason to believe that a discovery motion would not be held after the trial, and that could well be confusing.  Of course, the right answer would be to call the court or plaintiff’s counsel to clear the matter up rather than ignore the 12/2/24 hearing date, but the court at least understands the argument.

Of some greater concern is that there is nothing attached to the motion indicating that there is some meritorious defense that would justify setting aside the judgment.  This is not a default situation, where plaintiff need make no showing on liability before judgment is entered.  This was a trial.  Plaintiff had to put in sufficient evidence to warrant a judgment on the merits.  Before this court will throw out such a judgment based on a thin excuse, the court would need to be satisfied that there is some potential defense out there that justifies such an action.  The court will not rely on the answer; it is plainly not accurate.  For example, the answer alleges that plaintiff seeks rent that is over a year in the past, yet the rent sought is rent accruing from September 2024 forward.  In short, the court has some sympathy for the notion that a tenant is being evicted without being able to present his case to the court, but also for the notion that plaintiff is entitled to a speedy trial at which defendant failed to appear, and possession ought to be restored absent some good reason to believe plaintiff might not be entitled to it.