Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

¿ 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Skyrun Crafts Co. Ltd (“Plaintiff”) filed this breach of contract action against defendants ST & Company LLC, Raheel Lakhany, and Does 1-50 setting forth two causes of action for breach of contract and common counts. 

On February 14, 2023, Defendants ST & Company LLC and Raheel Lakhany (collectively, “Defendants”) filed their Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendants were then represented by Darrel C. Menthe (“Mr. Menthe”) of Sage Law Partners, PC. 

On May 9, 2024, at the Case Management Conference (“CMC”), Non-Jury Trial was scheduled for June 24, 2024 and the Final Status Conference (“FSC”) was scheduled for June 10, 2024. 

On June 24, 2024, the matter was called for non-Jury Trial. After no appearance by Defendants, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $136,209.10. 

On September 24, 2024, Defendants filed the instant motion for relief from judgment. 

On October 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. 

On October 16, 2024, Defendants filed a reply. 

 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

CCP §473(b) provides, in pertinent part:¿ 

“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. Application for this relief … shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken. …” 

Under CCP § 473, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating an excusable ground, such as fraud or mistake, justifying a court’s vacating a judgment. (Basinger v. Roger & Wells (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 16, 23-24.) 

 

III. DISCUSSION 

Defendants contend that they had vacated 1813 East Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA, 90021 (“1813 East Washington”) as of July 31, 2023 to 401 E. 2nd St., Los Angeles, CA 90012, and that although this address was not updated with the Secretary of State due to oversight, that Plaintiff should have known about the new address by checking Defendants’ business website. Defendants assert they received no notice of the trial date or any other hearing. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendants received notice of the trial date multiple times. Plaintiffs assert Defendants first received notice that the trial date was June 24, 2024 at the CMC on May 9, 2023. Defendants received a second notice of the trial date when Judge Feeney granted Mr. Menthe’s motion to be relieved as counsel, which listed the trial date as June 24, 2024. The third time Defendants received notice was on June 17, 2024 when Plaintiff mailed notice to both 1813 East Washington and the erroneous address 813 East Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA, 90021 (“813 East Washington”). 

In reply, Defendants reassert that they had lack of notice of the actual trial date and were deprived of the ability to defend themselves. Defendants focus on the lack of notice regarding the motion to continue trial and hearings thereafter. 

The Court has reviewed the case matter. The Notices (MC-051) to Mr. Menthe’s motion to be relieved as counsel listed Defendants’ mailing address was 1813 East Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA, 90021-3126 (“1813 East Washington”), whereas the declaration and proof of service listed 813 East Washington Boulevard as the address for service of process. It is undisputed by the parties that 813 East Washington Boulevard is erroneous. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to continue the trial date. Although the Court’s Notice Re: the Continuance of the Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial was mailed to Defendant’s prior counsel Mr. Menthe, Plaintiff’s own Notice Re: the hearing on the continue trial was mailed to Defendants at 1813 East Washington. (Notice, June 6, 2024.) On June 7, 2024, Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial was denied and the trial date of June 24, 2024 established at the CMC stood firm. Plaintiff was ordered to give notice of that ruling. (Min. Order, June 7, 2024.) No proof of service filed related to the ruling denying Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial was filed. Defendants did not appear at the FSC on June 10, 2024. On June 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed Notice of Trial and the rulings made at the FSC to defendants at the erroneous address of “813 East Washington”. On June 24, 2024, the matter proceeded as an uncontested trial due to the lack of appearance by Defendants, and the Court found in favor of Plaintiff. (Min. Order, June 24, 2024.) 

As Plaintiff avers, the trial date of June 24, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. and the FSC for June 10, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. was scheduled for the first time at the CMC on May 9, 2023. Defendants’ prior counsel, Mr. Menthe, appeared at that hearing. Counsel’s knowledge of the trial date and FSC is imputed on Defendants, which Defendants appear to implicitly acknowledge by not outright contesting this fact. Instead, Defendants’ arguments focus on the notices served thereafter. Even though Defendants had no notice that the trial date of June 24, 2024 would remain firm pursuant to Judge Feeney denying Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial and the FSC affirming the same trial date, Defendants were on notice all the same that the trial date was June 24, 2024. The contention of no actual notice would hold more weight if trial had in fact been moved, based on the authorities cited by the parties. However, the trial date remained unchanged since it was initially set at the CMC, and Defendants could have checked the court docket at any time to see whether trial would proceed as previously scheduled. (See e.g. Cnty. of San Bernardino v. Mancini (2002) 83 Cal. App. 5th 1095, 1103 [Failure to attend hearing inexcusable and does not warrant relief under section 473(b) when counsel could have easily confirmed whether the hearing would proceed by calling the court or checking the docket].) Thus, Plaintiff serving the Notices to either the erroneous address of “813 East Washington” or to an address no longer occupied by Defendants thereafter constitutes harmless error under the circumstances. 

 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to set aside judgment is DENIED. 

 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

 

DATED: October 22, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. 

• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. 

• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.