Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 24STCV32592, Date: 2025-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 24STCV32592    Hearing Date: April 4, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

Order to Show Cause why the Court Should not Strike Defendant Pacific West Distributors’ Answer to the Complaint (filed 2/4/25) Because it was Filed After its Default was Entered on 1/21/25

Plaintiff Bouzaglo Family LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this unlawful detainer action on December 10, 2024, against, inter alia, defendant Pacific West Distributors (“Defendant”).

On January 31, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default against Defendant.  The clerk entered Defendant’s default pursuant to Plaintiff’s request on January 31, 2025.  (Jan. 31, 2025, Req. for Default, CIV-100, p. 1.)

Thereafter, on February 4, 2025—i.e., after Defendant’s default was entered—Defendant, along with defendant Stephen Scott Brown, filed an answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

On March 10, 2025, the court set the pending Order to Show Cause why the court should not strike Defendant’s answer to the complaint (filed 2/4/25) because it was filed after its default was entered on 1/21/25.  (Mar. 10, 2025 Minute Order, p. 1.)  The court further ordered that any response to the Order to Show Cause shall be filed and served no later than 9 court days before the hearing.  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff served Defendant with a copy of the court’s March 10, 2025 order by mail at Defendant’s counsel’s address of record, and by email on March 11, 2025.  (Mar. 11, 2025 Notice of Orders, pp. 22-23 [proof of service].)

Defendant did not file a response to the Order to Show Cause to present argument or evidence showing that the court should not strike its answer.  Upon review of the record, the court finds that Defendant’s answer was not filed in conformity with the laws of this state because it was filed after Defendant’s default was entered.  (Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385-386 [“‘A defendant against whom a default has been entered is out of court and is not entitled to take any further steps in the cause affecting plaintiff’s right of action; he cannot thereafter, until such default is set aside in a proper proceeding, file pleadings . . . .’”].)

The court therefore grants its own motion to strike the “Answer—Unlawful Detainer” filed by Defendant on February 4, 2025.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)

The court orders that the “Answer—Unlawful Detainer,” filed by defendant Pacific West Distributors on February 4, 2025, is stricken.

            The court orders plaintiff Bouzaglo Family LLC to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  April 4, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court