Court Opinion

ID: 9405178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 18:04:38.536568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:20.170798
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/27/23 City and County of San Francisco v. Bato CA1/3

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or
ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

          IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                DIVISION THREE

 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
 FRANCISCO et al.,
           Plaintiffs and Respondents,                                 A164141

 v.                                                                    (City & County of San Francisco
 ANGELICA BATO,                                                        Super. Ct. No. CGC-18-564770)
           Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Angelica Bato appeals a judgment entered after the trial
court denied her motion to set aside entry of default. She brought the motion
more than a year after default was entered, and the trial court denied it on
the grounds that the lengthy delay showed a lack of diligence and that Bato
had not shown she had a meritorious defense to the action. On appeal, Bato
raises a variety of arguments for why the default should not have been
entered, but she does not address the bases for the trial court’s decision. We
affirm.
                    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
         The City and County of San Francisco (the City) brought this action
against Bato and others on March 5, 2018, alleging they owned or operated
an illegal gambling establishment and asserting causes of action for red light

                                                               1
abatement (Pen. Code, §§ 11225–11235), public nuisance, non-compliance
with the City’s building and planning codes, and unlawful business practices
(Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200–17210). Bato was served with the complaint by
mail, and her counsel, Andrew Dimitriou, acknowledged receipt of the
summons and complaint on February 26, 2019. The City inquired repeatedly
about when Dimitriou would file Bato’s answer; Dimitriou told the City’s
counsel on multiple occasions that he would be filing a verified answer for
Bato, and on April 17, 2019 he sent a copy of an answer to the City’s counsel.
He did not, however, file the answer with the court. The caption indicated it
was filed by “Attorneys for Defendant Angela Bato,” and the first page of the
answer began, “Defendant, Angela Bato, . . . hereby answers the Complaint,”
but the verification was signed “Angelica Bato.” (Italics added.)
      A case management conference was scheduled for June 12, 2019, but on
May 22, 2019, the trial court delayed the conference until July 17 “to obtain
an answer[] from, or enter default[] against, defendant[] ANGELICA C
BATO.” In a June 26, 2019 case management statement, the City’s attorney
explained that Dimitriou had not responded to multiple emails asking
whether he intended to file an answer, and further explained that “[a]s a
professional courtesy I have not sought a default against A. Bato yet.” The
same day, Dimitriou told the City’s counsel he would be out of the office until
July 5 and would file an answer upon his return.
      The trial court cancelled the scheduled July 17, 2019 case management
conference and issued an order to show cause directing the City to appear on
August 27, 2019 to show cause why the action should not be dismissed, or
sanctions imposed for failure to obtain an answer from, or enter default
against, Bato.

                                       2
      Dimitriou informed the City on July 12, 2019 that he had filed the
answer, enclosing another copy of the answer, but the answer did not appear
on the court’s docket. The City’s counsel emailed Dimitriou on July 19 to tell
him the answer was not on the docket and asking if it had been properly
filed. He wrote again July 29, reminding Dimitriou of the order to show
cause and telling him he would seek default if the answer was not filed
immediately. The next day, Dimitriou forwarded a copy of an email he
received from the filing service, which contained this message from the court
clerk: “Rejected because there is still confusion as to who the Answer is being
filed on behalf of. Pleading indicates Angela Bato, whereas the Verification
portion signed by the actual defendant indicates ANGELICA Bato. Name of
defendant must be consistent throughout document.” Dimitriou told the
City’s counsel he would correct the answer and refile it that day, but he did
not do so.
      The City filed its response to the order to show cause on August 22,
2019, explaining that as a matter of professional courtesy, and in light of
Dimitriou’s repeated representations that he would file the verified answer
on Bato’s behalf, the City had not previously filed a default. The same day,
the City filed a request for entry of default, and the court clerk stamped the
front page of the request, in a box on the top right labeled “FOR COURT USE
ONLY,” with the following: “DEFAULT ENTERED AS REQUESTED.”
Another box at the bottom of the front page had boxes labeled “Default
entered as requested on (date)” and “Default NOT entered as requested (state
reason).” These boxes were left blank. The same day, the request for default
was served on Bato by mail both at an address that was apparently her home
address and at her business address, and it was also electronically served on
her counsel, Dimitriou.

                                       3
         Dimitriou emailed the City’s counsel on October 30, 2019 asking to talk
with him about the case, but he cancelled the scheduled conversation and did
not respond to the City’s invitation to reschedule it.
         Bato obtained new counsel, whom she first approached for
representation in June 2020. She filed a motion to set aside the default on
November 24, 2020, five months after she contacted her new counsel and
more than 15 months after the default was entered. She made the motion on
equitable grounds, asserting that the court clerk acted illegally in rejecting
the answer she presented for filing in July 2019 and that her former counsel
had “totally failed to represent” her, thus establishing extrinsic fraud or
mistake. And, she asserted, the City’s counsel acted wrongfully in seeking a
default under the circumstances. She asked the court to deem her answer
filed.
         The declarations supporting Bato’s motion are conspicuously vague as
to the time she learned of the default. In her declaration, Bato averred
Dimitriou, her initial counsel, assured her the case was under control; that he
told her he would file the answer on her behalf; that he never told her the
answer had been rejected or that default had been entered; and that she did
not learn of the default until after she retained new counsel, whom she
approached for representation because she was having difficulty
communicating with Dimitriou. For his part, Bato’s new counsel declared
that Bato first approached him in June of 2020 and told him she was having
problems communicating with Dimitriou about the case; that he contacted
Dimitriou, who promised to send the case files but did not do so; that
Dimitriou led him to believe the case was under control and did not mention
the default; and that he learned of the default (at some unspecified time)

                                         4
when his office reviewed the online register of actions and downloaded
various documents from the court.
      The trial court denied the motion, ruling that even assuming
Dimitriou’s behavior amounted to a complete abandonment of the attorney-
client relationship, Bato failed to satisfy two of the three prongs of the test for
equitable relief from default: she did not show she had a meritorious defense
to the action, and she did not act with diligence in seeking to set aside the
default once it was discovered.
      On June 4, 2021, the trial court entered a default judgment, from which
Bato has appealed.
                                  DISCUSSION
      A party may move for relief from default on statutory or equitable
grounds. Section 473, subdivision (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure
authorizes such relief based on “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect” if a motion is brought within six months from entry of default. (See
Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980 (Rappleyea).) Even after the
time for a statutory motion has passed, however, a court may grant relief
from default on equitable grounds, for instance for extrinsic fraud or extrinsic
mistake—“a term broadly applied when circumstances extrinsic to the
litigation have unfairly cost a party a hearing on the merits.” (Id. at p. 981;
accord, Pulte Homes Corp. v. Williams Mechanical, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th
267, 275 (Pulte Homes).) Bato’s motion was brought on equitable grounds.
We review the trial court’s denial of a motion for equitable relief from a
default for abuse of discretion (Rappleyea, at p. 981; County of San Diego v.
Gorham (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1230), reversing only if the decision is
“ ‘ “so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it” ’ ”
(Mechling v. Asbestos Defendants (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1241, 1249).

                                        5
      In considering a request for relief from default on equitable grounds,
courts apply a three-part test: “first, the defaulted party must demonstrate it
has a meritorious case; second, it must articulate a satisfactory excuse for not
presenting a defense to the original action; and third, the moving party must
demonstrate diligence in setting aside the default once it was discovered.”
(Lee v. An (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 558, 566; accord, Pulte Homes, at p. 275.)1
The party seeking relief has the burden to show that each aspect of this test
is met. (Hudson v. Foster (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 640, 664.)
      The City did not dispute below that the second prong was satisfied,
conceding that Dimitriou’s “presence as [her] attorney has been sorely lacking
throughout this case, especially when it came to filing the verified answer.”
(See People v. One Parcel of Land (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 579, 584.) But, the
City argued and the trial court agreed, Bato made no showing either that she
had a meritorious defense or that she exercised diligence once the default was
discovered. On appeal, Bato addresses neither point, except to assert,
without authority, that any lack of diligence in filing her motion was
irrelevant. We note that she might have availed herself of the proposition
that “[o]rdinarily a verified answer to a complaint’s allegations suffices to
show merit.” (Rappleyea, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 983.) Because Bato verified
the answer that was never filed, we will not rely on the first prong of the
three-part test.

      1  Although there is some question whether this three-part test should
be strictly applied where, as here, default judgment had not yet been entered
when the court ruled on the motion for relief from default (see Rappleyea,
supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 982), Bato does not argue that as a general matter it is
inappropriate to consider these factors when ruling on an equitable motion
for relief from entry of default.

                                        6
      With regard to the third prong, however, a review of the record
confirms substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion that
Bato failed to exercise diligence in setting aside the default. The evidence
shows the City served not only her counsel, but Bato herself at both her home
and business addresses, with the default request, but that she took no action
in response for more than a year. (See Kramer v. Traditional Escrow, Inc.
(2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 13, 37 [diligence generally measured from when party
discovers default].) More importantly, after she contacted her current
counsel, who learned default had indeed been entered, she did not seek relief
for five more months. The record therefore supports a conclusion that she did
not exercise diligence in response to the default. (See Pulte Homes, supra,
2 Cal.App.5th at pp. 271, 277–278 [four-and-a-half-month delay in seeking
default showed lack of diligence].)
      On appeal, instead of challenging the trial court’s findings, Bato raises
several arguments for reversing the default judgment. First, she points to
the fact that the clerk did not check the box at the bottom of the request for
default indicating whether the default was entered as requested. From this,
she contends that the clerk never actually entered the default. This
argument fails. First, she did not raise it in the trial court and has therefore
forfeited it. (See North Coast Business Park v. Nielsen Construction Co.
(1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 22, 28–29.) More fundamentally, this argument
entirely ignores the fact that, at the top of the same page, the clerk stamped
the words, “DEFAULT ENTERED AS REQUESTED.” We are satisfied that
the clerk entered the default.
      Second, Bato argues that the trial court clerk had a ministerial duty to
file her answer despite the discrepancy in the names in the answer and
verification, and the answer should therefore be deemed filed as of July 12,

                                        7
2019. She relies on authorities indicating the clerk has a ministerial duty to
accept a filing that substantially conforms to the applicable rules. (Rojas v.
Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, 776–778 [deeming complaint filed on
date it was presented to clerk although declaration for court assignment was
not signed and summons did not reflect address of correct division of court,
contrary to local rules]; Mito v. Temple Recycling Center Corp. (2010) 187
Cal.App.4th 276, 280 [clerk has ministerial duty to file complaint that
complies with state requirements]; Carlson v. Department of Fish & Game
(1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1276 [same]; United Farm Workers of America v.
Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 912, 918 [petition for writ
of review lacking required verification treated as filed when delivered to
clerk, although matter could be dismissed later if defect not timely corrected];
Voit v. Superior Court (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1287–1288 [clerk has
ministerial duty to file request for appointment of counsel that complied with
rules of court and could not demand that party cite precedent supporting
motion].) And, she contends, Dimitriou’s failure to file a corrected answer
constitutes extrinsic fraud and mistake that justifies equitable relief.
      The authorities upon which Bato relies are distinguishable from the
case before us. In most of those cases, the clerk’s wrongful rejection of a filing
rendered an action untimely, barring an action entirely. That was not the
case here. Nor did the clerk repeatedly refuse to accept a filing or improperly
require an unrepresented party to cite precedent, as in Voit. Rather, the
problem was a technical one that could easily have been remedied with no ill
consequences to Bato by simply correcting the name on the answer and
presenting it again for filing.
      For purposes of our analysis, we take no position on whether the clerk
had a ministerial duty to file an answer that indicated on its face it was on

                                        8
behalf of someone not named in the action, with a name inconsistent with the
verification. (Cf. Kellar v. Hendey (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 86, 87–88 [answer
stricken if filed by stranger to action]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.112(3) [each
defense must state party asserting it if more than one party represented on
pleading].) Even assuming error on the part of the trial court clerk, the facts
remain that the problem could easily have been resolved by changing the
name on the first page of the answer, that Bato took no steps to do so, that on
the same day the court entered the default, August 22, 2019, the request for a
default was served on Bato herself at two addresses, as well as on her then-
attorney, and yet she did not seek relief from the default for 15 months. We
recognize the evidence that Dimitriou neglected his duties, but Bato was on
personal notice of the default from August 2019 onward, and even after
contacting a new attorney she waited five months before seeking relief. The
trial court could reasonably conclude that Bato did not establish she acted
diligently and that this extensive delay defeated her claim for equitable
relief.
          Bato also contends the City took unfair advantage of the clerk’s error
when it requested default. We fail to see how. The record indicates the City
showed considerable forbearance in holding off on seeking default, doing so
only when the trial court issued an order to show cause why the action should
not be dismissed for its failure to do so.
          On this record, we cannot find the trial court’s decision was outside the
bounds of reason, and we therefore find no abuse of discretion in denying
equitable relief from default.
                                   DISPOSITION
          The judgment is affirmed. In the interests of justice, the parties shall
bear their own costs on appeal.

                                           9
                                                               TUCHER, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

PETROU, J.
RODRÍGUEZ, J.

City & County of San Francisco et al. v. Bato (A164141)

                                                          10