Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: BC715897, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC715897    Hearing Date: December 8, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant James Samatas          

RESPONDING PARTY:       Real Party in Interest Tanager View, LLC, on behalf of defendant and Cross-Complainant 1410 Tanager, LLC

Motion for Relief from Summary Adjudication Order and Judgment Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) and Order Setting Aside or Vacating Order and Judgment

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff James Samatas (“Samatas”) filed this action against 1410 Tanager, LLC (“1410 Tanager”) on August 3, 2018, alleging two causes of action for (1) breach of equitable servitudes, and (2) private nuisance.  On December 3, 2019, 1410 Tanager filed its First Amended Cross-Complaint against Samatas, alleging causes of action for (1) breach of equitable servitudes, and (2) private nuisance.

On March 22, 2022 the court granted the motion for summary adjudication as to 1410 Tanager’s first cause of action against Samatas, filed by real party in interest Tanager View, LLC, on behalf of cross-complainant 1410 Tanager.

On July 22, 2022, the court entered judgment in favor of 1410 Tanager and against Samatas pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.

Samatas filed the pending motion for relief from order and judgment on August 31, 2022.

DISCUSSION

Samatas moves the court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), for an order vacating and setting aside (1) the court’s March 22, 2022 order granting summary adjudication against Samatas and in favor of 1410 Tanager, and (2) the resulting judgment entered by the court on July 22, 2022.

Samatas contends that he is entitled to relief because he failed to oppose the motion for summary adjudication based on his mistaken belief that no opposition was due in light of his pending motion to strike.  Specifically, Samatas asserts that he read Code of Civil Procedure sections 437c and 435 to mean that he was entitled to assert affirmative defenses to the First Amended Cross-Complaint in an answer before a motion for summary adjudication could be heard against him.  (Samatas Decl., ¶¶ 14-18.)

Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, the court denies Samatas’s motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)

“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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)  Such a motion must be (1) accompanied by a copy of the pleading proposed to be filed, and (2) made no later than six months after the judgment or order was taken.  (Ibid.)

As set forth above, Samatas requests relief on the ground that he failed to oppose the successful motion for summary adjudication against him based on his erroneous interpretation of Code of Civil Procedure sections 437c and 435.  (Samatas Decl., ¶ 22 [“I misunderstood the Code of Civil Procedure and failed to make a filing”].)  Samatas’s misreading of the specified statutes constitutes a mistake of law.

“An honest mistake of law is a valid ground for relief where a problem is complex and debatable.  [Citations.]  The controlling factors in determining whether a mistake is excusable are: (1) the reasonableness of the misconception; and (2) the justifiability of the failure to determine the correct law.”  (Miller v. City of Hermosa Beach (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1136 [internal citations and internal quotations omitted].)  While “a mistake of law may be excusable when made by a layman but not when made by an attorney[,]” the court may still assess the factors set forth above.  (Tammen v. County of San Diego (1967) 66 Cal.2d 468, 479; Hopkins & Carley v. Gens (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1412-1413.)

            The court finds that Samatas has not met his burden of establishing that he is entitled to relief based on his mistake of law. 

            First, the court finds that the issue of whether Samatas would be required to oppose the motion for summary adjudication despite his pending motion to strike portions of the First Amended Cross-Complaint did not pose a “complex and debatable” problem. 

The court further finds that Samatas’s erroneous reading of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c was not reasonable.  (Miller, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 1136.)  Section 473c does not state that an answer must be filed before a court may rule on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication.  While “the consideration of a motion for summary judgment [or adjudication] can be accomplished more effectively in many cases when an answer has been filed and the issues and defenses delimited thereby[,]” the court is permitted to consider a motion for summary judgment or adjudication prior to the filing of an answer.  (Sadlier v. Superior Court (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1050, 1056, fn. 7; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022) ¶ 10:63 [“a summary judgment motion by plaintiff is permissible even though defendant has not yet filed an answer”].)  Instead, section 437c requires only that a motion for summary judgment “be made at any time after 60 days have elapsed since the general appearance in the action or proceeding of each party against whom the motion is directed or at any earlier time after the general appearance that the court, with or without notice and upon good cause shown, may direct.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(1).)

Second, the court finds that Samatas has not presented evidence establishing that he justifiably failed to determine the correct law governing this issue.  (Miller, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 1136.)  The court recognizes that Samatas was acting in pro per, and that, although he was a licensed attorney in Illinois, he has not practiced law in approximately 40 years and was not a practicing attorney in California.  (Samatas Decl., ¶¶ 9, 17, 19; Samatas Reply Decl., ¶ 2.)  However, Samatas does not present evidence establishing that he justifiably failed to determine the correct law.  Samatas asserts only that he read two statutory provisions in an effort to determine whether he was obligated to oppose the motion for summary adjudication.  (Samatas Decl., ¶¶ 14-17.)  Samatas did not state that he conducted any other legal research to support this reading, or otherwise consulted with an attorney to determine whether he should have filed an opposition to the motion for summary adjudication, despite the fact that his motion to strike was set for hearing on the same day.  Indeed, as set forth above, the answer was readily available by referring to a popular and well-respected practice guide on California civil procedure.  (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022) ¶ 10:63 [“a summary judgment motion by plaintiff is permissible even though defendant has not yet filed an answer”].)

Upon consideration of the evidence and the arguments, the court finds that the mistake of law on which Samatas relies did not concern a complex and debatable problem.  (Miller, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 1136 [holding that an honest mistake of law is a valid ground for relief if “a problem is complex and debatable”].)  As set forth above, the issue of whether an answer is required to be filed before the court may rule on a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is not complex or debatable.  The court further finds that Samatas has not met his burden of establishing that this mistake of law was excusable because Samatas did not present evidence establishing that his misconception was reasonable and that he was justified in failing to determine the correct law.  (Ibid.)

The court therefore finds that Samatas has not met his burden of establishing that he is entitled to relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).  (Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1205 [“A party seeking relief under section 473 bears the burden of proof”].)

ORDER

            The court denies plaintiff and cross-defendant James Samatas’s Motion for Relief from Summary Adjudication Order and Judgment Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) and Order Setting Aside or Vacating Order and Judgment.

The court orders real party in interest Tanager View, LLC, on behalf of defendant and cross-complainant 1410 Tanager, LLC, to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  December 8, 2022

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court