Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV15791, Date: 2024-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15791    Hearing Date: April 9, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment filed by Defendant Forum Entertainment, LLC.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On May 11, 2022, Caroline Castaneda (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Forum Entertainment, LLC (“Defendant”), The Kia Forum, and Does 1 through 50, for negligence and premises liability causes of action arising from a slip and fall occurring on March 19, 2022.

On August 29, 2022, default was entered against Defendant.

On March 17, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to set aside and vacate default. That motion was heard on May 17, 2023, and denied as untimely.

On October 6, 2023, Default Judgment was entered against Defendant.

On December 19, 2023, Defendant and Plaintiff jointly filed this motion to vacate the default judgment entered against Defendant on October 6, 2023, and dismiss this action in its entirety with prejudice.

Legal Standard

“ [A]s a general rule, the parties should be entitled to a stipulated reversal to effectuate settlement absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances that warrant an exception to this general rule.” (Neary v. Regents of University of California (1992) 3 Cal.4th 273, 276.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a), states: “Every court shall have the power to do all of the following: … (8) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice. An appellate court shall not reverse or vacate a duly entered judgment upon an agreement or stipulation of the parties unless the court finds both of the following: (A) There is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal. (B) The reasons of the parties for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment and the risk that the availability of stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement.”

Discussion

The parties have entered into a settlement agreement.  (Lenkov Decl., ¶ 4; Caiafa Decl., ¶ 4.)  As part of the settlement agreement, the parties have agreed to seek to set aside the default judgment entered against Defendant. (Lenkov Decl., ¶ 4; Caiafa Decl., ¶ 4.)

The Court has considered the arguments of counsel and the evidence in the record.  The Court finds that it has the power to set aside the judgment, that there are no extraordinary circumstances present, and that setting aside the judgment would not have an adverse effect on nonparties or the public.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8); Neary v. Regents of University of California (1992) 3 Cal.4th 273, 276.)

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion to set aside the judgment.

The Court SETS ASIDE the default judgment entered on October 6, 2023.

The Court ORDERS that the entire action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.