Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case 20STCV30584 2022-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV30584, Date: 2022-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV30584 Hearing Date: September 21, 2022 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: September 21, 2022 JUDGMENT ENTERED: May 16, 2022

CASE: Claudia Mizutani v. Juan M. Cuarenta, et al

CASE NO.: 20STCV30584

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Juan M. Cuarenta

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Claudia Mizutani

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action for quiet title and conversion that was filed on August 12, 2020. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants executed a forged quitclaim deed to deprive her of a 50% interest in a piece of real property.

Defendant Juan M. Cuarenta moves to set aside a default judgment entered on May 16, 2022.

TENTATIVE RULING:

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

DISCUSSION:

Defendant Juan M. Cuarenta moves to set aside a default judgment entered on May 16, 2022.

Plaintiff’s Requests for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of (1) a Complaint and (2) a Cross-Complaint, both from a case titled Cuarenta v. Mizutani, Case No. 16K10527. As these documents are not relevant to the Court’s ruling, Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice are DENIED. . (Gbur v. Cohen (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 296, 301 (“[J]udicial notice . . . is always confined to those matters which are relevant to the issue at hand.”].)

Timing

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), a motion to set aside/vacate cannot be brought more than six months after the entry of the order at issue and must be made within a “reasonable time.” The six-month time limit is jurisdictional. (Rutan v. Summit Sports, Inc. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 965, 970.) Six months is defined as half a year, or 182 days, for the purposes of this section. (Davis v. Thayer (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 892, 901-04.)

Here, the default judgment was entered on May 16, 2022. (May 16, 2022 Default Judgment.) This motion was filed on August 17, 2022, three months later. The motion is therefore timely.

Analysis

Defendant moves to set aside the default judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and excusable neglect.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(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…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…was taken.

Section 473(b) also authorizes the Court to grant relief from default using the Court’s equitable powers. (Aldrich v. San Fernando Valley Lumber Co., Inc. (1985) 170 Cal.3d 725, 736.) As this motion seeks relief from a default judgment entered for failure to appear at trial, no proposed pleading is required.

In default cases, there is a three-part test for relief; whether there is/was: (1) a meritorious case; (2) a valid reason for not defending the original case; and (3) diligence used in requesting to set aside default once discovered. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975; see also Shapiro v. Clark (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1144.) The Court also considers possible prejudice that could result from default being set aside. (Munoz v. Lopez (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 178, 183.) Absent a showing of prejudice to the Plaintiff, only very slight evidence is required to justify setting aside a default. (Fasuyi v. Permatex, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 681, 696.) Section 473 “should be liberally applied and the power freely exercised to carry out the policy in favor of trial on the merits.” (5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d 3d. 1971) Attack on Judgment in Trial Court, § 165, p. 3735; Taliaferro v. Taliaferro (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 216, 220.) There is a strong policy behind granting relief if the moving party brings the motion for relief within the statutory time. (In re Marriage of Stevenot (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1051, 1071.)

As a threshold matter, Plaintiff has not made any showing that granting relief will prejudice Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendant needs only offer very slight evidence to justify relief.

1. Meritorious Case

Plaintiff dedicates the entirety of her opposition to attacking the merits of Defendant’s contention that the deed was forged. This argument is not appropriate in the context of a motion to set aside a default judgment. The only question before the Court is whether Defendant would be entitled to relief if her contentions were proven to be true. Defendant’s contention is that Plaintiff has no interest in the property because the 2011 Grant Deed which purportedly conveyed a 50% interest to Plaintiff is, according to Defendant, fraudulent. This is sufficient to establish a defense which, if proven, would not entitle Plaintiff to the relief sought in the Complaint.

2. Valid Reason for Not Defending Original Case

Defendant states in a verified declaration under penalty of perjury that he did not appear for the April 5, 2022 trial date as a result of his limited education, lack of fluency in English, and the withdrawal of his counsel in September of 2021. (Declaration of Juan Cuarenta ISO Mot. p.9:15-23.) Defendant states that without his counsel, he was unable to make sense of his case file or any of the associated legal documents, which resulted in missing his trial date. (Id.) Defendant also states that he was ill at the time with what he believes may have been COVID-19, although Defendant provides no medical records or other evidence in support of this contention. (Id. p.9:23-26.) The declaration states that it was translated to Spanish before signature, although it contains no signature from the translator. (Id. p.10:22-23.) Given the extremely liberal standards for relief from default, the Court finds that this evidence, given under penalty of perjury, is sufficient to establish a valid reason for failing to defend the original case.

3. Diligence in Requesting to Set Aside Default

There is an unofficial standard that, in order to bring a motion to set aside a default, that motion should be filed within three months of the party’s discovery of the default. (Benjamin v. Dalmo Mfg. Co. (1948) 31 Cal.2d 523, 529; Huh v. Wang (2007), 158 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1421-22.) Defendant does not state exactly when he discovered the default judgment was entered. The default judgment was entered on May 16, 2022, but Defendant was not served with the notice of entry of judgment until June 21, 2022. (Proof of Service of Notice of Entry of Default.) This motion was filed on August 17, 2022, 93 days (just over three months) after the default judgment was entered. Presuming that Defendant was properly noticed on June 21, 2022, the motion was filed less than two months after service of the notice. Further, Defendant’s new counsel substituted into this case on July 29, 2022, and this motion was filed less than three weeks later. (July 29, 2022 Substitution of Attorney.) The Court finds that Defendant has therefore exercised reasonable diligence in moving to set aside the default judgment.

The Court finds that Defendant, having offered a meritorious case in his defense, having shown evidence of a valid reason for not defending the case originally, and having shown evidence of diligence upon discovery of the default, is entitled to relief from default judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b).

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside the Default Judgment is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2022 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.