Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV25081, Date: 2024-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25081    Hearing Date: January 30, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Set Aside Default filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles.

Tentative

The motion is GRANTED.

Background

This arises from a motor vehicle incident that occurred on December 14, 2023.  Plaintiff Vartaw Grigorian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on August 3, 2022, asserting a cause of action under General Negligence and Motor Vehicle Negligence against Defendants City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, Lazaro Ramirez and Does 1 to 100.

On September 14, 2023, default was entered against Defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”). On January 5, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to set aside the default.

No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

“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…” (Code Civ. Pro., §473, subd. (b).)

To qualify for relief under section 473, the moving party must act diligently in seeking relief and must submit affidavits or testimony demonstrating a reasonable cause for the default. (Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 234.)

“In a motion under section 473 the initial burden is on the moving party to prove excusable neglect by a “preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]”” (Kendall v. Barker (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 619, 624.) “The moving party has a double burden: He must show a satisfactory excuse for his default, and he must show diligence in making the motion after discovery of the default.” (Id. at 625.)

Discussion

Defendant’s counsel states that due to severe staffing issues, this matter “fell between the cracks” and a responsive pleading was not filed. (Sassounian Decl., ¶ 2, 3.) Defendant’s counsel states that the default was due to attorney error in failing to assign the case to a trial deputy. (Id., ¶ 5.)

Defendant has attached a copy of its proposed Answer as Exhibit A.

No opposition has been filed.

The Court finds Defendant has established the default occurred due to counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect due to staffing issues and mismanaging the assigning of the case. Defendant has filed this motion within six months of default, as default was entered on September 14, 2023.

Therefore, Defendant’s motion to set aside the default is GRANTED.  

Conclusion

Defendant’s motion to set aside the default is GRANTED.

The default entered on September 14, 2023, is hereby SET ASIDE.

Defendant is granted leave to file the answer attached to its motion within 7 days.

The Court sets a Trial Setting Conference in approximately 30 days.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.