Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 23STCV17046, Date: 2024-11-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV17046 Hearing Date: November 25, 2024 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: November
25, 2024
CASE NAME: West Sunset Blvd. Properties 2, LLC v. Byte
to Bite (California), LLC
CASE NO.: 23STCV17046
![]()
MOTION
TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT![]()
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff
West Sunset Blvd. Properties 2, LLC
RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of November 20, 2024
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An
Order setting aside the April 25, 2024 judgment; or
2. An
Order correcting a clerical error in the April 25, 2024 judgment award amount.
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. Motion
to Set Aside the April 25, 2024 Judgment is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff
to file and serve an amended default judgment package within 21 days of this
ruling.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On July 20, 2023, Plaintiff West Sunset Blvd. Properties 2,
LLC (Plaintiff) filed an Unlawful Detainer Complaint against Defendant Byte to
Bite (California), LLC (Defendant).
On July 31, 2023, Defendant filed an Answer.
On November 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint (FAC). The FAC added additional Defendants Sanford Gendel and Sandro
Reinhart.
On January 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal
as to Sandro Reinhardt only.
On January 29, 2024, the court entered default against
Defendant Sanford Gendel.
On February 23, 2024, the court entered default against
Defendant Byte to Bite.
On April 25, 2024, the court entered default judgment
against Defendants Byte to Bite and Gendel.
On July 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to set
aside the April 25, 2024 Judgment. Oppositions were due on or before November
12, 2024. As of November 20, 2024, the court has not received any oppositions.
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. Proc., § 473(b).)¿¿¿
¿¿
The court has broad discretion to vacate the entry of
default, default judgment or a dismissal, but that discretion can be exercised
only if the defendant establishes a proper ground for relief, by the proper
procedure and within the set time limits. Pursuant to CCP section 473(b), a
motion to set aside/vacate cannot be brought more than 6 months after the entry
of default and must be made within a “reasonable time.”¿¿
¿¿
CCP section 473(b) provides that when an application for
relief is made no more than six months after entry of dismissal and is
accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, the court shall set aside a dismissal
entered against the attorney’s client, unless the court finds that the default
or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).) “The court shall, whenever
relief is granted based on an attorney's affidavit of fault, direct the
attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing
counsel or parties.”¿¿
¿¿
Where an “attorney¿affidavit of fault” is filed, there is
no requirement that the¿attorney's¿mistake, inadvertence, or neglect be
excusable. Relief¿must¿be granted even where the default or dismissal resulted
from¿inexcusable¿neglect by defendant's¿attorney. (Robert E. Weil, et al.,
California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial ¶ 5:495 (2018).)¿
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff requests the court to set aside the April 25, 2024
Judgment because counsel made a mistake when calculating the damages sought.[1]
Plaintiff provides two attorney declarations indicating the mistake by counsel.
Defendants did not file oppositions.
Here, relief is warranted. First, Plaintiff filed this
motion within six months of the judgment. Second, Plaintiff provides two
attorney declarations of fault.
Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to set
aside the April 25, 2024 Judgment.
CONCLUSION:
For
the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
1.Motion to Set Aside the April
25, 2024 Judgment is GRANTED;
2.Plaintiff to file and serve an
amended default judgment package within 21 days of this ruling.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 25, 2024 __________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court
[1]
Plaintiff alternatively moves for relief pursuant to CCP § 473(d) which gives
the court authority to correct clerical errors. However, that section applies
to the court’s clerical errors. Here, the court made no clerical errors –
counsel did. As such, this section does not provide the relief Plaintiff seeks.