Judge: Michael Small, Case: 23STCV06949, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV06949 Hearing Date: December 6, 2023 Dept: 57
Defendant
has moved under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b) to vacate the default
that the Court clerk entered against her in this partition action that the
Plaintiff has brought. The Court is
denying the Defendant’s motion.
In
pertinent part, Section 473(b) provides that a party may seek relief “from a
judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her
through his or her mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” A clerk’s entry of a default is a proceeding
from which relief may be sought under Section 473(b). (Lorenz v. Commercial Acceptance Ins. Co. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 981, 990-91.) Section 473(b) motions for relief from a
clerk’s entry of default must be filed within a reasonable time after default
was entered, and, in any event, cannot be brought more than six-months after
the entry of default. (Rutan v.
Summit Sports, Inc. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 965, 970.)
The
following is a recitation of the undisputed procedural and factual background
to the Defendant’s Section 473(b) motion.
Plaintiff served the Defendant with the summons and complaint in this
action on May 25, 2023. Defendant concedes
she was properly served. Defendant did
not respond to the complaint within the 30-day deadline set by the Code of
Civil Procedure. Plaintiff then
proceeded to request that the clerk enter a default against the Defendant. The clerk entered default on June 29,
2023. On the same day, Plaintiff mailed
the Defendant a copy of the clerk’s entry of default. Defendant concedes that she received that mailing. Defendant moved to set aside the default on
October 4, 2023. The previous day, the
Defendant had filed an answer to the Plaintiff’s complaint. The filing of the answer had no legal effect,
however, because of the default that was in place when the answer was filed.
In
her Declaration in support of the motion to vacate the clerk’s default,
Defendant states that she is presently involved in multiple lawsuits regarding
properties owned by her family and the volume of suits has overwhelmed her. Defendant further states that she mistakenly
thought that the summons and complaint she received from Plaintiff about this partition
suit dealt with one of the other lawsuits, and that is why she failed to file a
timely response to the Plaintiff’s complaint.
In
the Court’s view, Defendant’s declaration does not justify the relief from
default that Defendant seeks under Section 473(b). For one, missing from the declaration is any
statement by the Defendant of some action she took in one of the other lawsuits
she references in the Declaration in the mistaken belief that the summons and
complaint she received from the
Plaintiff about this partition suit related to another suit. It thus appears from the Declaration that the
Defendant did nothing in any of the suits following receipt of the summons and
complaint in this lawsuit. Furthermore,
Defendant’s declaration does not adequately explain why it took Defendant more
than three months to file her Section 473(b) motion following service of the
clerk’s entry default. It would seem
that service of the entry of the default should have immediately made Defendant
aware of her purported confusion and mistake and prompted her to act promptly
to seek to vacate the default.
To
be sure, Defendant was self-represented at the time the summons and complaint were
served and the time for responding to the complaint was running. But being self-represented is not in and of
itself a legitimate excuse for Section 473(b) purposes.
The
Court is mindful of the principle in Section 473(b) jurisprudence that
disposition of cases on the merits, rather than through defaults, is the
preferred course. This principle affords
litigants their day in court. Here,
however, that principle gives way because Defendant has not presented
sufficient justification for Section 473(b) relief and did not act with reasonable
diligence to set aside the default when the purported confusion and mistake was
called to her attention.