Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV12081, Date: 2025-06-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12081    Hearing Date: June 16, 2025    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 6-16-25

Case: 23STCV12081

Trial Date: Not Set

VACATE DEFAULT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Lee Scharf, pro per

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed, Plaintiff, Rejuvenada Medical Group, Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Vacate Default

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On January 14, 2022, Plaintiff Rejuvenada Medical Group, Inc. alleges entry into a Supply Purchase Agreement with Defendants Lee Scharf, Guangzhou Canchi Trading Ltd., Canchi USA for four million (4,000,000) Flowflex Covid-19 Antigen at Home Tests. The total contract prices was $17,000,000. Plaintiff provided an advanced payment of $6,200,000, but no testing kits ever arrived. Plaintiff demanded a refund, but no refund was made.

On May 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Breach of Written Contract, Conversion, Intentional Misrepresentation, Promissory Fraud, Unjust Enrichment, Theft, and Unalwful Business Practices. On June 28, 2024, the clerk entered defaults against Defendant Lee Scharf.

RULING: Granted.

Defendant Lee Scharf, in pro per, moves for relief from the June 28, 2024, entry of default, due to mistake, inadvertence, and/or excusable neglect. The court electronic filing system shows no opposition or reply at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473 subdivision (b) provides in 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 accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.”

“The six-month time limit for granting statutory relief is jurisdictional and the court may not consider a motion for relief made after that period has elapsed. (Citation.) The six-month period runs from entry of default, not entry of judgment.” (Manson, Iver & York v. Black (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 36, 42.) The motion was filed 160 days after entry of the defendant. The motion is therefore timely.

A discretionary standard applies to the motion given the party’s in pro per appearance. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1251-1252; see Rodriguez v. Brill (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 715, 727.) Public policy favors adjudication of claims on the merits. Nevertheless, where conduct by the party acting in pro per represents a deliberate, strategic decision, public policy vests the court with discretion to find no basis for relief. (Benedict v. Danner Press (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 923, 929-930; Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1251-1252.)

Defendant moves for relief on grounds that Scharf was not privy to the dealings of co-defendants, though admittedly acted as a sales representative on behalf of the Canchi defendant(s). While Scharf agreed to use of his residence for purposes of a United States mailing address, Scharf denies ever agreeing to act as an agent for service. Scharf attempted to “disavow” any basis of liability in an August 25, 2023, and filed an “affidavit,” but later learned such presentation was not sufficient. Scharf additionally denies service of any request for entry of default.

The court finds the motion both timely and well supported. The unopposed motion is GRANTED. Scharf to separately file the proposed answer within 10 days of this order.

Plaintiff to give notice.