Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV32445, Date: 2023-08-22 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 22STCV32445    Hearing Date: October 18, 2023    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

Maria Esther Flores Prieto,

 

 

 

Plaintiff,

 

Case No.:

 

 

22STCV32445

 

vs.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

 

Avfund Capital Group, Inc., et al.,

 

 

 

Defendants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: October 18, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

(2) Motions to Set Aside Default Judgment

Moving Party: Defendants Avfund Capital Group, Inc. and Raul Avila

Responding Party: Plaintiff Maria Esther Flores Prieto

 

T/R:      DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT ARE GRANTED

 

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

 

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

 

The Court considers the moving papers and opposition.

 

CCP § 473(b) provides, in pertinent part, “[t]he court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”

 

Defendants move to set aside default and default judgment on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Default was entered against Defendants on December 27, 2022. Default judgment was entered against Defendants on March 15, 2023. Defendant Avila declares that he did not receive actual notice of the complaint when it was served by substitute service and instead learned of the case when default was entered. Avila states that he believed court cases remained on hold due to the COVID-19 pandemic. When default judgment was entered, Defendants hired an attorney and filed this motion.

 

The Court will set aside default and default judgment against Defendants. Defendants did not respond to the complaint due to lack of notice and did not challenge the entry of default due to mistake.

 

Defendants’ motions are GRANTED.