Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/motion-for-relief-from-judgment-130
Timestamp: 2020-07-15 05:45:05
Document Index: 650666603

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 473', '§ 473', '§ 473', '§ 473', '§ 473', '§ 437', '§ 473', '§ 473', '§ 473', '§ 473', '§ 473', '§ 473', '§473', '§473', '§473', '§ 473', '§ 473', '§ 473', '§ 473', '§ 473', '§ 473', '§ 473']

What is a Motion for Relief from Judgment?
“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).)
A motion for relief from judgment must be made within six months after judgment was entered. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).) The six month time limit is jurisdictional. (Rutan v. Summit Sports, Inc. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 965, 970.) After expiration of the 6-month period, a defendant may obtain relief by showing “lack of notice” of the proceedings and relief must be sought within 2 years of the default judgment or 180 days after service of written notice that the default or default judgment has been entered, whichever is earlier. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5.) This provision likewise requires that “a copy of the answer, motion, or other pleading proposed to be filed in the action” be filed and served at the same time as the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5(b).)
“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).)
“Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, 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
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.”
(Code Civ. Proc. § 437(b).)
“[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. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981-82.)
Where an “attorney affidavit of fault” is filed, there is no requirement that the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, etc. be excusable. Relief must be granted even where the default resulted from inexcusable neglect by defendant's attorney. (Standard Microsystems Corp. v. Winbond Electronics Corp. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 868, 897.) Relief is mandatory. (Beeman v. Burling (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1586, 1604.) The court is not concerned with the reasons for the attorney's mistake, whether excusable or inexcusable. (Billings v. Health Plan of America (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 250, 256.) Thus, as long as the motion is timely and the attorney has submitted a declaration stating that the default, default judgment or dismissal was entered due to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect, relief is mandatory, regardless of whether the error was reasonable or not. (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 681-682.) As long as it appears that the default was actually the result of the attorney’s mistake or neglect, and not the client’s fault, the court must grant relief. (Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 257.)
Although the language of the mandatory provision of section 473, subdivision (b), on its face, “affords relief from unspecified ‘dismissal’ caused by attorney neglect, our courts have, through judicial construction, prevented it from being used indiscriminately by plaintiffs' attorneys as a ‘perfect escape hatch’ to undo dismissals of civil cases.” (Gotschall v. Daley (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 479, 482-483.) Courts have limited the application of the mandatory provision to those dismissals procedurally equivalent to defaults. (Gotschall v. Daley (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 479, 482-483.) Section 473, subdivision (b) was never intended to be a “catch-all remedy for every case of poor judgment on the part of counsel which results in dismissal.” (Gotschall v. Daley (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 479, 482-483.)
Otherwise, the court must look at whether the mistake or neglect was the type of error that a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances might have made. (Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 270, 276.) The court will not grant relief if the defendant’s default was taken as a result of mere carelessness or other inexcusable neglect. (Luz v. Lopes (1960) 55 Cal.2d 54, 62.) Mistake is not a ground for relief when “the court finds that the ‘mistake’ is simply the result of professional incompetence, general ignorance of the law, or unjustifiable negligence in discovering the law.” (Henderson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 215, 229-230.) The party seeking relief under section 473(b) on basis of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect has the burden of showing a satisfactory excuse for the occurrence of that mistake, inadvertence, or neglect. (Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 918, 929; Eigner v. Worthington (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 188, 196.)
Useful Rulings on Motion for Relief from Judgment
NETWORK COMMERCIAL SERVICE INC VS AMIR MOGHADDAM ET AL
SUBJECT: Motion for Relief from Judgment Post-Trial Moving Party: Defendants Amir Moghaddam, Helena Rostami, AM Solution to Investment, LLC Resp. Party: Plaintiff Network Commercial Service, Inc. Defendant’s motion for relief from judgment post-trial by vacating the January 2, 2019 judgment is GRANTED. BACKGROUND: Plaintiff Network Commercial Service, Inc. commenced this action on October 3,...
..no appearances by or for Defendants nor any communication with the Court as to why there was no appearance by or for Defendants to this date. (09/25/2018 Minute Order.) During the final status conference, the Court noted that a non-jury trial would take place on October 9, 2018. (See id.) On September 28, 2018, the Court notified the parties by sending notice to Plaintiff and Defendants’ counsels...
FREEMAN, CHRIS VS LE, GINA
The Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment brought by Defendant Grace Le, erroneously sued as Gina Le, is CONTINUED to March 6, 2017 at 8:30 am. Defendant is ordered to file and serve a responsive pleading and a supplemental declaration addressing the deficiencies discussed below by February 14, 2017. Background Plaintiff filed the complaint in the instant action on May 23, 2014. Defau...
..§ 473(b). CCP section 473(b) provides that a motion for relief from judgment must be made within six months after judgment was entered. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).) The six month time limit is jurisdictional. Rutan v. Summit Sports, Inc. (1985) 173 Cal.App. 3d 965, 970. Here, the default was entered on January 13, 2015, and the default judgment was entered on January 29, 2016. Defendant...
INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF VS CHAPA, ROCHELLE MAY
Defendant Rochelle May Chapa’s Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment is DENIED. Background This is an insurance subrogation case. Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club filed a complaint against Defendant Rochelle May Chapa on August 13, 2014, alleging Defendant caused damages to a motor vehicle insured by Plaintiff. On January 20, 2016, default was entered, and on June 21, 201...
..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 reason...
CHRISTIE SCARBOROUGH VS FACEBOOK INC
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL IS DENIED. Background On July 13, 2018, Plaintiff Christie Scarborough filed the instant action against Defendant Facebook, Inc. and Does 1 through 9. On September 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) adding Greg Fessler, Rudy Twomoon, and Gena Simkins as additional Plaintiffs. The FAC asserts a single cause of action for damages and i...
..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. Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) provides, in relevant 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 proceedi...
GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY VS SANCHEZ, EDUARDO MARIN
Defendant Eduardo Marin Sanchez’s Motion To Vacate Default Judgment is DENIED. Background Plaintiff filed the complaint for subrogation for property damages on October 22, 2015. Default was entered against Defendant on March 7, 2016. Default judgment was entered against Defendant on May 12, 2016. Defendant filed an ex parte application for motion to set aside default judgment on August 10, 2016....
..s 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 § 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 ti...
CROSS AMERICA FINANCIAL LLC VS. LIU, CAROL
Defendants Carol Liu and Susan Liu’s Motion To Vacate Defaults And Default Judgment is DENIED. Defendants’ motion is untimely pursuant to CCP section 473(b). Defendants also fail to demonstrate they are entitled to equitable relief. Background Plaintiff filed the complaint against Defendants on June 23, 2014. Defaults were entered against Defendants on February 3, 2015. A default judgment was e...
..nd default judgment is untimely. CCP section 473(b) provides that a motion for relief from judgment must be made within six months after judgment was entered. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).) Here, defaults were entered against Defendants on February 3, 2015. A default judgment was entered against Defendants on August 5, 2016. Defendants filed the instant motion on September 29, 2016. While the...
Recent Rulings on Motion for Relief from Judgment
San Francisco County, CA (31)
KURT KULAS VS ADMANIAX, LLC
When a party seeks equitable relief from judgment pursuant to extrinsic mistake, the six-month limit applicable does not apply. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981.) Extrinsic mistake occurs when “circumstances extrinsic to the litigation have unfairly cost a party a hearing on the merits.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981.)
PHILLIPS VS. SHBOOM NIGHTCLUB
Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 918 (motion labeled motion for reconsideration construed and determined by the Court as a motion for relief from judgment under CCP § 473(b)). "The principle that a trial court may consider a motion regardless of the label placed on it by a party is consistent with the court's inherent authority to manage and control its docket." Id. at 930. See also Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 187, 193.
ALFRET MORADIAN, ET AL. VS DAVID LALIBERTE, ET AL.
That case held that an attorney’s mistake in failing to include attorneys’ fees in a section 998 offer was not a proper basis for relief from judgment under section 473, subdivision (b). They argue the decision in Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249 does not apply here because that case dealt with a typographical error. In Zamora, the California Supreme Court stated, “Although the law favors settlements [citation], it only favors authorized settlements.
SALAS VS GUSTAVO
On December 13, 2019, the Court granted that request and backdated the effective date of the removal to the date when Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Relief from Judgment in which they represented that they were now representing themselves in pro per. Defendant now opposes Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment. Merits of Motion Plaintiffs move for relief from judgment under C.C.P. § 473(b).
HARRIETT E. HAYWOOD VS RTED AMERICA, LLC, ET AL
Motion for Relief from Judgment on Ground of Intrinsic Fraud The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. RULING The motion is DENIED. BACKGROUND On May 5, 2017, Harriett E. Haywood filed a complaint against RTED America, LLC and Special Default Services, Inc. for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) promissory estoppel, (4) negligence, (5) unfair business practices, (6) negligent misrepresentation, and (7) quiet title.
YOUNG VS. HSBC BANK USA, A US CORPORATION
CCP§473(b) provides relief from judgment taken “through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect”. CCP§473(d) provides relief from a judgment with clerical errors, or a void judgment. Here, Plaintiff cites to CCP§473 generally and fails to cite to either subsection, specifically. Plaintiff makes no showing that any mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect was involved in the Court granting the Motion for Judgment of Non-Suit.
ARNON RAPHAEL VS. YAMEE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
Equity – To the extent that Defendant move for relief from judgment on the basis of the Court’s equitable powers, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to establish adequate basis to justify such a remedy.
CALHOON VS MEJIA
On September 27, 2019, the court issued an order denying Calhoon’s motion to fax file (construed as a motion for reconsideration or a motion for relief from judgment). On October 24, 2019, Calhoon filed a “Motion to Set Aside Void Judgment” pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d).
Equitable Relief Defendant argues she is entitled to relief from judgment on equitable grounds. “[U]nder well[-]established law the court may grant relief under its inherent equitable power only if, due to the fraud of the opponent or by his own mistake, the aggrieved party was deprived of a fair adversary hearing and was prevented from presenting his claim or defense, or as the authorities put it, if the fraud or mistake was ‘extrinsic’ [citations].” (De Mello v. Souza (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 79, 85.)
SPARBER ANNEN MORRIS & GABRIEL APLC VS HILLSBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC
The Motion for Reconsideration of and Relief from Judgment by Court on Stipulation (to Set Aside) brought by Hillsborough Development Company, LLC (Hillsborough) is GRANTED.
Those concerns are completely assuaged here because, about three days before the present Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel was filed, the clients themselves, plaintiffs Mauro Ortiz and Soledad Gaytan, filed their own Motion for Relief from Judgment purporting to represent themselves in pro per. (ROA 80.) In that document, they also provide an address of record: 516 Blue Jay Ct, Oceanside, CA, 92058.
., § 473, and the court's equitable power for relief from judgment on the ground that her former husband's lawyer had represented her without her knowledge and consent, and the trial court set aside the judgment as to her. The lessor appealed. While the trial court’s ruling was based on a number of grounds and flaws, one of the grounds was the failure to properly serve the wife with the summons and complaint in the first instance. There are some similarities between Zirbes and this case.
RUMION VS. RUMION
Here, were it appropriate to hold that any time a party is not given actual notice, a default and/or judgment is rendered void and subject to a set aside under Code of Civil Procedure § 473(d), another statute – namely Code of Civil Procedure § 473.5, which is entitled "Relief from judgment where summons does not result in actual notice" – would be rendered superfluous as all relief that could be obtained under Code of Civil Procedure § 473.5 could also be obtained under Code of Civil Procedure § 473(d).
SUBJECT: Motion for Relief from Judgment Post-Trial Moving Party: Defendants Amir Moghaddam, Helena Rostami, AM Solution to Investment, LLC Resp. Party: Plaintiff Network Commercial Service, Inc. Defendant’s motion for relief from judgment post-trial by vacating the January 2, 2019 judgment is GRANTED.
NOTRE DAME VS. QUINTANILLA
Defendant filed this motion on April 10, 2019 which is well beyond the two year period for relief from judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5.
3250 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD PARTNERS VS JOHN LEE
Judgment Debtor Min’s motion to vacate renewal of the judgment or for equitable relief from judgment and dismiss the case against Andrew Min is DENIED. Judgment Debtor Andrew Min moves to vacate the original, 2010, and 2018 renewal of judgment; or to set aside the original void judgment under the court’s equitable powers for extrinsic mistake. Min contends he was never served with the notice, original complaint, or summons. He originally leased office space in “Suite 1005” with John Lee for four months.
CHANHT REATREY KEO VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, ET AL
Courts have discretion to grant a party’s request for relief from judgment, dismissal, order or other proceeding taken against a party upon a showing of mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Leader v. Health Industries, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App. 4‘h 603, 615-616; Code ofCiv. Proc. Section 473(b).) However in this matter, the court finds that plaintiff failed to establish mistake, inadvertence, surprise of excusable neglect.
RAHBARNIA VS. TERTZAKIAN
Motion for Relief from Judgment filed by Jamal Rahbarnia NO TENTATIVE 2. Status Conference
Motion - for Relief from Judgment filed by Jamal Rahbarnia NO TENTATIVE 2. Status Conference
Motion - for Relief from Judgment filed by Jamal Rahbarnia; NO TENTATIVE
INDIAN SPRINGS SCHOOL VS. GIDA, ET AL
CCP § 473 allows generally for relief from judgment, dismissals, defaults, proceedings and orders. The act at issue was the clerk’s ministerial act of rejecting the original application and therefore none of the enumerated conduct are at issue here. Relief under CCP § 473 is therefore not available. However, relief is appropriate to avoid an injustice since the application was returned in error.