Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Therese Reinhardt and Alan Reinhardt,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

The Legendary Partnership, Luke Caldwell, Krystine Wills, and Steven Wills,

Defendants.

Case No.: 23STCP00970

DEPARTMENT 45

[TENTATIVE] RULING

Action Filed: 03/27/2023

[1st Amended Complaint Filed: N/A]

Trial Date: N/A

Hearing Date: September 6, 2024

Moving Party: Defendants Krystine Wills and Steven Wills

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Therese and Alan Reinhardt

Motion: 2 Motions to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment

Tentative Ruling: The Court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply. The motions are DENIED.

Background

This case stems from allegations of a loan that was given, but never paid back. In May of 2016, Alan and Therese Reinhardt (Plaintiffs) loaned $50,000.00 to Luke Caldwell, Steven Wills, Krystin Wills, and the Legendary, a general partnership, who failed to repay the loan. In 2018 Plaintiffs filed suit in the Circuit Court for Arlington County, Virginia. A hearing was set for June 15, 2018 for a Motion for Entry of Default Judgment. On that date the Virginia court continued the hearing to August 3, 2018 to allow all defendants to retain counsel. By August 3, 2018 Steven and Krystin Wills (Moving Defendants) failed to file any response and failed to appear at the hearing. The Virginia Court then entered default judgment in the amount of $96,785.80 as to all defendants jointly and severally. (See Opposition Papers, Exh. B) Plaintiffs then obtained a sister-state judgment against all defendants in California.

The motions now before this Court are Steven Wills’ Motion to Vacate/Set Aside Judgment and Krystin Wills’ Motion to Vacate/Set Aside Judgment (collectively, the Motions). Plaintiffs file one opposition to both motions; Moving Defendants file a reply.

Discussion

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) provides: "The 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....”

Judges must vacate dismissals, default entries, and default judgments “whenever (1) an application is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, (2) the application is accompanied by an attorney's sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, and (3) the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect in fact caused the dismissal or entry of default.” (Benedict v. Danner Press (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 923, 927 (citing CCP §473(b)). Also see Wagner v. Wagner (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 249, 258.)

Where counsel seek relief alternatively under both the excusable and attorney-fault provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Section 473 and confirms that any act or omission leading to the entry of the default was done without the client's knowing participation, relief is mandatory. (Solv-All v. Sup. Ct. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1012. Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473, "surprise" means “‘“some condition or situation in which a party . . . is unexpectedly placed to his injury, without any default or negligence of his own, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against.”’” (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal. App. 4th 600, 611.)

Analysis

Preliminarily, Moving Defendants do not cite which statute they are filing their Motions under. However, Moving Defendants both contend the Default Judgment entered on August 3, 2018 by the Virginia Court should be vacated because the initial loan agreement was between Luke Caldwell and Plaintiffs, not Moving Defendants.

Upon opposition, Plaintiffs note that the Default Judgment was entered as to both Moving Defendants, and Plaintiffs further contend that Moving Defendants waived their rights to contest the Virginia Court’s Default Judgment, and the same Virginia Court agreed. On a July 12, 2024 hearing addressing Moving Defendants attempt to vacate the Default Judgment the Court noted:

“There is no relief the Court can grant. They were -- whether they were served or not, they appeared in court and made a general appearance. They requested additional time, nor to hire an attorney, to file a response to pleading, and if that was an error, then they could have filed a responsible pleading themselves or they could have shown up and put on evidence as to why there shouldn't be a general partner, or whatever the other issue is being raised. All that could have been addressed, and should have been addressed, back in 2018. They clearly sat on their rights here.”

This Court agrees. Moreover, independent of the Virginia Court’s analysis, there is no basis for vacating the Default Judgment. Upon reply, Moving Defendants argue that the hearing should at least be continued because a notice of appeal was filed on August 5, 2024 to contest the Virginia Court’s Default Judgment ruling. However, the instant Motions to Vacate are an improper vehicle for a request for continuance. If the appeal is successful, Plaintiffs will have grounds to file a renewed motion to vacate here with this Court. Until then, the instant Motions are denied.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Steven Wills’ Motion to Vacate/Set Aside Judgment and Krystin Wills’ Motion to Vacate/Set Aside Judgment are DENIED.

It is so ordered.

Dated: September 6, 2024

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court