Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24NNCV00654, Date: 2024-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV00654    Hearing Date: August 29, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

CHARLIE FERRELL, et al.,

                    Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

TESLA MOTORS, INC., et al.,

 

                    Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

     CASE NO.:  24NNCV00654

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT

 

Dept. 3

8:30 a.m.

August 29, 2024

 

)

 

 

I.            INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Charlie Ferrell and Robert Spina (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on April 2, 2024. Plaintiffs allege that defendant Tesla Motors, Inc. (“Defendant”) entered into a written warranty contract for a vehicle which contained or developed defects. Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. 

On June 5, 2024, at Plaintiffs’ request, the clerk entered Defendant's default.

On July 12, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to set aside the default.

Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on August 16, 2024.

Defendant filed a reply brief on August 22, 2024.

II.          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, subd. (b).) Additionally, “the court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney's sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” (Ibid.)

III.        DISCUSSION

Defendant’s attorney, Elham Hassantash, declares that “as a result of mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect, the deadline for the responsive pleading in this case was not calendared and consequently a response was not filed.” (Hassantash Decl., ¶ 4.) This declaration of fault is sufficient for the Court to grant mandatory relief under section 473(b). Courts must grant a timely request for relief from a default where it was caused by an attorney’s mistake, including calendaring mistakes. (Hu v. Fang (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 61, 64.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that defense counsel’s calendaring error is inexcusable because it was reflective of a larger pattern of error. However, when granting relief under the mandatory provision of section 473(b), the court does not consider whether the attorney’s mistake or inadvertence is excusable. (Standard Microsystems Corp. v. Winbond Electronics Corp. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 868, 897.) The court is only concerned with whether the attorney is responsible for the default. (See Martin Potts & Assocs., Inc v. Corsair, LLC (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 432, 438-331.)

IV.        CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to set aside the default is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to file its proposed responsive pleading within 10 days of the date of this order.

 

Dated this 29th day of August, 2024

 

 

 

 

       William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.