Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV06963, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV06963    Hearing Date: June 7, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     June 7, 2024               TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Griffin M. Bracci v. Orion Housing, LLC

CASE NO.:                 21STCV06963           

MOTION TO SET ASIDE JULY 19, 2023 ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND DEEMING TRUTH OF MATTERS IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Orion Housing, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Griffin M. Bracci

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for breach of contract that was filed on February 23, 2021. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to provide proper notice of construction on the property which Plaintiff was leasing from Defendant, denying Plaintiff the full use of that property.

Defendant moves to set aside the Court’s July 19, 2023 order compelling Plaintiff to provide responses to discovery and deeming the truth of matters stated in requests for admissions as admitted.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Order is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant moves to set aside the Court’s July 19, 2023 order compelling Plaintiff to provide responses to discovery and deeming the truth of matters stated in requests for admissions as admitted.

//

//

Legal Authority to Set Aside Order

            Defendant brings this motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) and the Court’s inherent equitable authority. Section 473(b) provides:

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. Proc. § 473(b)[emphasis added].) The six-month time limit is jurisdictional. (Pulte Homes Corp. v. Williams Mechanical, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 267, 273.) Thus, the time to bring this motion to set aside an order from July 11, 2023 expired on January 8, 2024 under section 473(b).

            That said, Defendant also brings this motion under the Court’s equitable authority to set aside prior orders. Although case law discussing this form of relief is primarily concerned with defaults and default judgments, rather than interlocutory orders, the Court has the inherent authority to vacate prior orders on equitable grounds such as extrinsic fraud or mistake. (See Bae v. T.D. Service Co. of Arizona (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 89, 97.) There is no time limit as to when a motion under the Court’s equitable powers may be brought. (See Kramer v. Traditional Escrow, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 13, 29.) However, the Court’s ability to grant relief under its inherent power is narrower than its power under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b). (Carroll v. Abbot Laboratories, Inc. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 892, 901, fn.8.) Further, a party seeking to set aside an order pursuant to the Court’s equity power “must make a substantially stronger showing of the excusable nature of his or her neglect than is necessary to obtain relief under ... section 473.” (In re Marriage of Stevenot (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1051, 1074.) As stated by our Supreme Court, “[w]hen a default judgment has been obtained, equitable relief may be given only in exceptional circumstances. ‘[W]hen relief under section 473 is available, there is a strong public policy in favor of granting relief and allowing the requesting party his or her day in court. Beyond this period there is a strong public policy in favor of the finality of judgments and only in exceptional circumstances should relief be granted.’” (Rappleyea v. Cambpell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981-82.)

            A party seeking relief under the Court’s equitable powers must satisfy a “stringent” three-pronged test: (1) a satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense; (2) a meritorious defense; and (3) diligence in seeking to set aside the prior order. (Rappleyea v. Cambpell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 982-83.)

//

Analysis

            Defendant moves to set aside the Court’s July 19, 2023 order compelling Defendant to provide code-compliant responses without objections to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production, and deeming Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions as Admitted. The undisputed facts giving rise to this motion are that on November 16, 2022, Plaintiff served form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admissions on Defendant through its counsel of record via electronic service. (See July 19, 2023 Minute Order p.3.) Defendant did not respond to any of the discovery by the statutory deadline of December 20, 2023. (Id.) Plaintiff thereafter moved to compel responses to the interrogatories and requests for production and to deem the truth of the requests for admissions, with a hearing on the motions to compel responses to interrogatories scheduled for July 12, 2023. (See July 12, 2023 Minute Order.) No opposition to those motions was ever filed. (Id.) The parties attended an Informal Discovery Conference on February 21, 2023, at which time, pursuant to an oral stipulation, Defendant was permitted to serve and file a Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections to be heard on July 12, 2023, with the parties to file a joint statement of remaining discovery issues by June 1, 2023. (February 21, 2023 Minute Order.) No Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections or Joint Statement was ever filed. Moreover, at the July 12, 2023 hearing, the office of Defendant’s then-counsel, Jonathan Dawson, advised the Court that Attorney Dawson had been in a vehicle accident and was in the emergency room. (July 12, 2023 Minute Order.) The hearing was continued to July 19, 2023, to coincide with the remaining two motions on requests for production and requests for admissions. (Id.) On July 19, 2023, there were no appearances for Defendant and no responses had been provided. (July 19, 2023 Minute Order.) The Court therefore adopted its tentative, granting all four motions. (Id.)

            Defendant now brings this motion for relief from that order on the basis that Defendant’s former counsel, Attorney Jonathan Dawson, failed to communicate with Defendant’s authorized agent, Jamie Koo. Ms. Koo states that Attorney Dawson ceased to communicate with her regarding the status of the case after February 16, 2023, though they “did have other discussions about other unrelated matters” until July 7. (Declaration of Jamie Koo ISO Mot. ¶ 6.) Ms. Koo states that she never received a copy of the discovery served by Plaintiff until she received it from her current counsel, and that Attorney Dawson also never informed Ms. Koo of the then-pending discovery motions. (Koo Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9.) After July 7, 2023, Ms. Koo states that she was completely unable to contact Attorney Dawson despite “numerous emails, calls, and texts.” (Id. ¶ 8.) Ms. Koo states that she retained California Property Law Group to represent her on March 5, 2024, but does not account for the eight months between losing contact with Defendant’s counsel and retaining substitute counsel. (Koo Decl. ¶ 11.)

            The Court finds multiple issues with Defendant’s explanation. First, the contention that Attorney Dawson never discussed the instant case with the agent of his client draws considerable skepticism and leads the Court to question whether Defendant has a satisfactory excuse for not originally defending the motion. Second, as Plaintiff points out in opposition, Defendant fails to explain the appearance of Attorney Dawson at the February 2, 2024 hearing, at which the Court discharged an Order to Show Cause Re: Why Answer Should Not Be Stricken for Failure to Appear and Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions for Failure to Appear. (February 2, 2024 Minute Order.) Third, and most crucially, Defendant totally neglects to explain why, if it lost contact with its counsel on July 7, 2023, it did not retain substitute counsel until March 5, 2024 and did not bring this motion until May 6, 2024, ten months later. Defendant’s declaration thus demonstrates neither a satisfactory excuse for failing to defend previously nor diligence in seeking to set aside the order once it was entered under the more stringent standard for equitable relief.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Order is DENIED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  June 7, 2024                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.