Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV11375, Date: 2025-01-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV11375    Hearing Date: January 28, 2025    Dept: 40

24STCV11375 Ruby love, et al. v. Debra Gregg, et al.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER  DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

I.       BACKGROUND

      This action arises from the alleged uninhabitable conditions of residential premises leased from Defendants. Plaintiffs allege six causes of action arising from these conditions and Defendants’ alleged breach of contract.

      On September 5, 2024, Plaintiffs appeared.  The Court noted that Defendants had been served but no responsive pleadings had been filed.  Plaintiffs informed the Court that they intended to file requests for entry of default.  (M.O. 9/5/24.) The Court set an Order to Show Cause [OSC] Re: Re Entry of Default/Default Judgment for November 14, 2024.  (M.O. 9/5/24.)

08:30 AM in Department 40 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

      On November 14, 2024, Plaintiffs failed to appear at the Case Management Conference (“CMC”) and Order to Show Cause: Re Entry of Default/Default Judgment Hearing.  In addition, Plaintiffs failed to seek entry of default between September 5, 2024, and November 14, 2024,  although they had 70 days to do so.  By failing to appear and failing to respond in writing to the OSC, Plaintiffs failed to show good cause for failing to comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110. (Ca. Rules of Court, Rule 3.110, subd., (g),  [If a responsive pleading is not served within the time limits specified in this rule and no extension of time has been granted, the plaintiff must file a request for entry of default within 10 days after the time for service has elapsed.].)  Here, the court issued sanctions against Brockmeier Law Group and APC to be paid by April 30, 2025.  The court issued two additional orders to show cause (See M.O. 11/14/24) and set hearings on those OSCs for May 1, 2025.  The court also  ordered Plaintiffs’ counsel to respond in writing to the Orders to Show Cause five days before the next hearing date

      Plaintiffs filed this motion on December 6, 2024, for reconsideration of the November 14, 2024, sanctions order. Plaintiffs argue they filed their case management conference statement on October 30, 2024, indicating Plaintiffs’ counsel’s intent to appear by telephone. The matter was subsequently reassigned from Hon. Anne Richardson on November 6, 2024. Counsel’s staff erroneously took the CMC off calendar upon receiving the notice of reassignment based upon a mistaken belief that the matters would be taken off calendar.

      Plaintiffs argue that the failure to file requests for entry of default resulted from the matter being taken off counsel’s calendar.

II.   DISCUSSION

      The motion is untimely under Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(b) (more than 10 days increased by five days to account for mailing of the notice).

      Even if the Court were to consider the motion, Plaintiffs have not satisfactorily explained the delay in obtaining entry of default against both Defendants who were personally served with the summons and complaint on July 1, 2024. (P.O.S. 7/24/24.) Defendants’ answers were due on July 31, 2024 pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 412.20, however, Plaintiffs did not request entry of judgment until December 4, 2024, after the hearing on November 14, 2024. (Req. Entry. Def. 12/4/24.) These facts do not warrant a change of the court’s November 14, 2024 order.

      Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.