Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV21702, Date: 2024-08-21 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 23STCV21702    Hearing Date: August 21, 2024    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

Law Firm of Harold Greenberg,

 

 

 

Plaintiff,

 

Case No.:

 

 

23STCV21702

 

vs.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

 

Barbara Appleberry and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive

 

 

 

Defendants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: August 21, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Set Aside Default

Moving Party: Plaintiff Law Firm of Harold Greenberg

Responding Party: Defendant Barbara Appleberry

 

T/R:    DefenDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT IS GRANTED.

 

            Defendant 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 8:30 am on the day of the hearing.

 

            The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

 

            Defendant Appleberry moves to set aside the default entered by the Court on May 6, 2024, on grounds of both fraud and excusable neglect.

 

A motion under CCP § 473(b) must be made within six months of the dismissal. Defendant’s motion is timely, as Default was entered on May 6, 2024, and Defendant Appleberry brought this motion on June 14, 2024.

 

Defendant first contends that the default was entered as the result of fraud. Defendant says she was not properly served and Defendant has produced a false Declaration of Due Diligence. She moves to set aside default pursuant to CCP § 473.5. Defendant has not shown fraud; her allegations are unsubstantiated.

 

Defendant also moves for relief pursuant to CCP § 473(b), claiming that she is 79 years old and experienced health challenges from which she is still healing. She also claims she was confused, and believed that her informal efforts to resolve the case would be sufficient. At the time Defendant was representing herself and did appear in Court explaining that she was trying to speak with Plaintiff to settle the case. The Court finds that this is sufficient to show excusable neglect.

 

The motion is granted. Defendant shall file her response to the complaint within 20 days.