Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV13316, Date: 2023-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV13316    Hearing Date: August 30, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Karla Aleman

RESPONDING PARTY:        Plaintiff 1718 Vine Street, LLC

(1)   Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment

(2)   Ex Parte Application for Order Staying Execution and Shortening Time

The court considered the moving and opposition papers filed in connection with the motion and ex parte application.  No reply papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff 1718 Vine Street, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this unlawful detainer action on June 9, 2023, against defendant Karla Aleman (“Defendant”). 

On June 28, 2023, Defendant filed her answer to the Complaint.

On July 26, 2023, the court called this action to trial.  Although the court found that Defendant was given proper notice of trial pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 594 by the clerk’s mailing of the July 14, 2023 minute order, Defendant did not appear at trial.  (July 26, 2023 Minute Order, p. 1.)  The court found in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant on Plaintiff’s Complaint for unlawful detainer. 

Thereafter, on July 31, 2023, the court entered judgment after court trial in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant and ordered that (1) Plaintiff is entitled to possession of the premises located at 3470 E. 1st Street, Los Angeles, California, 90063, and (2) Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff $34,238.00, consisting of past-due rent, holdover damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.  (July 31, 2023, UD-110, ¶¶ 4-5.)

Now pending before the court is (1) Defendant’s motion to set aside and vacate judgment, which was specially set for hearing by the court by order made on August 21, 2023, and (2) Defendant’s ex parte application for order staying execution and shortening time, which was continued by the court by order made on August 21, 2023.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE

Defendant moves the court for an order setting aside and vacating the judgment entered by the court on July 31, 2023, on the ground that Defendant did not receive notice of the trial date.

“The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party . . . from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)  A motion requesting this relief “shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.”  (Ibid.)  “The statute’s ‘broad remedial provisions’ [citation] are to be ‘liberally applied to carry out the policy of permitting trial on the merits’ [citation].  The party seeking relief, however, bears the burden of proof in establishing the right to relief.”  (Hopkins & Carley v. Gens (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1410 [internal citations omitted].)

The court finds that Defendant has not met her burden of establishing that the July 31, 2023 judgment was taken against her through her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect because Defendant has not shown that Defendant did not receive notice of the July 26, 2023 trial date.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)  

Defendant’s motion is primarily based on Defendant’s statements, made in her declaration, that (1) Defendant filed an answer and, while waiting for a hearing date, “got sick during that time and had to go to the hospital for a few days[;]” (2) after Defendant was discharged from the hospital, she came to court to review the status of this case and was informed that trial had already passed and judgment had been entered; and (3) Defendant “did not receive any notification by mail informing [her] that [Defendant] had this date to go to court, so [Defendant] did not have the opportunity to defend” herself.  (Aleman Decl., ¶ 2, subds. (f), (g).)  The court finds that these assertions are vague and insufficient to establish mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

Although Defendant states that she was in the hospital for a few days, Defendant did not state the dates when she was in the hospital, such that the court could conclude that Defendant did not receive notice of the trial date because she was hospitalized due to illness.  (Aleman Decl., ¶ 2, subd. (f).)  Moreover, Defendant’s assertion that she did not receive notice of the trial date is similarly vague and insufficient.  (Aleman Decl., ¶ 2, subd. (g).)  Defendant did not, for example, state that she checked her mail regularly from the period after July 14, 2023 (i.e., the date that the clerk mailed the notice of trial date) and never received the mailing of the notice of the trial date.  The court finds that, based on the evidence presented, Defendant’s assertion that she did not receive notice is not credible.   

Thus, the court finds that Defendant has not met her burden to show that she is entitled to relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), and therefore denies Defendant’s motion.

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY EXECUTION AND SHORTEN TIME

Defendant moves the court for an order staying execution of the judgment entered in this action “until such time as a hearing is had on Defendant’s motion to Vacate and for an order shortening the time in which the Motion can be heard.”  (Ex Parte App, pp. 1:24-2:4.)  

The court has now ruled on Defendant’s motion to set aside and denied the motion for the reasons set forth above.  The court therefore denies as moot Defendant’s ex parte application for an order staying execution and shortening time.

ORDER

The court denies defendant Karla Aleman’s motion to set aside and vacate judgment.

The court denies as moot defendant Karla Aleman’s ex parte application to stay execution and shorten time.

The court orders that the stay of execution of judgment issued by the court on August 21, 2023, is lifted and is no longer in effect.

The court orders plaintiff 1718 Vine Street, LLC to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  August 30, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court