Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV36713, Date: 2024-04-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36713    Hearing Date: April 15, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Ryan Blekier (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on November 21, 2022 against Defendant Craig Sackheim.

On February 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), alleging causes of action for (1) failure to pay overtime wages, (2) failure to pay terminated or quitting employee, (3) unfair business practices, (4) failure to pay expense reimbursement.

On October 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint substituting Tobi Sackheim for “Doe 1.”

On January 23, 2024, default was entered against Tobi Sackheim.

Tobi Sackheim now moves for an order to set aside the default entered against her on January 23, 2024, and for leave to file an answer. No opposition to the motion was filed.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) provides in pertinent 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.”

 “[B]ecause the law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits, any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default.” (Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233 [negative treatment on other grounds].) Where the party in default moves promptly to seek relief, and no prejudice to the opposing party will result from setting aside the default, “very slight evidence will be required to justify a court in setting aside the default.” (Ibid.)

In her declaration in support of the motion, Tobi Sackheim states that “I moved to Douglas County, Nevada in September 2022, where I have lived continuously from September 2022 to the present.” (Sackheim Decl., ¶ 10.) She states that “[a]lthough I maintain an apartment in Venice, California, it is not my residence and is solely used for occasional visits to Southern California amounting to approximately one month per year.” (Sackheim Decl., ¶ 11.) In addition, she states that “I did not receive any pleadings in this matter until I picked up mail that had not been forwarded to my Nevada address, in mid-February 2024 from the Venice, California apartment. In that mail was a copy of a Complaint and Amendment, and the ‘Request for Entry of Default’.” (Sackheim Decl., ¶ 12.)

The Court notes that on November 15, 2023, a proof of service was filed in this action indicating that the Summons and Complaint were personally served on Tobi Sackheim on November 11, 2023 at “236 San Juan Ave., Apt. 3 Venice, CA 90291-5756.” In her supporting declaration, Tobi Sackheim states that “I do not know who, if anyone, received a copy of the Summons and Complaint on November 11, 2023 at my Venice, California vacation home. That location is used by me as a vacation home and no one else was residing in that Venice location in November 2023.” (Sackheim Decl., ¶ 14.) Tobi Sackheim further states that “[i]mmediately after receiving the pleadings I began looking for an attorney, which was difficult due to my home being in Northern Nevada. I was finally able to I make an appointment with the Law Office of Karen L. Winters, who I retained when we met on March 5, 2024.” (Sackheim Decl., ¶ 15.)

Tobi Sackheim asserts that she “may have made a mistake in not receiving an actual copy of the pleadings timely, but it was inadvertent. She was surprised that she was an added defendant, therefore it was excusable neglect, which can be remedied by allowing her to move forward with her Answer and defenses.” (Mot. at p. 5:7-10.)

Tobi Sackheim’s proposed Answer to the FAC is attached to the instant motion. In addition, the motion was filed on March 19, 2024, less than six months after default was entered against Tobi Sackheim on January 23, 2024.

Based on the foregoing, and in light of the lack of any opposition, the Court finds that Tobi Sackheim has demonstrated good cause under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) for the Court to set aside the January 23, 2024 default.  

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Tobi Sackheim’s motion is granted. The default entered against Tobi Sackheim on January 23, 2024 is ordered set aside.

Tobi Sackheim is ordered to file her proposed answer to the FAC within 10 days of the date of this Order.¿ 

Tobi Sackheim is ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED:  April 15, 2024       

                        ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court