On 02/22/2019 FML MANAGEMENT CORP filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against GENARO J BAUTISTA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
*******1907
02/22/2019
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JAMES E. BLANCARTE
FML MANAGEMENT CORP.
BAUTISTA GENARO J.
RIVERA MARTHA
FUNES E. NORMA
FUNES NORMA E.
NUSSBAUM LANE
WADE AMIEL
7/15/2020: Judgment - Judgment Proposed
6/19/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment
6/19/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration in Support of Default Court Judgment
6/19/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration in Support of Application for Default Court Judgment
4/15/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal
4/21/2020: Notice of Rejection - Application for Default Judgment by Court - Contract or Tort - Notice of Rejection - Application for Default Judgment by Court - Contract or Tort
6/4/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike) of 06/04/2019
6/5/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment
5/22/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service
2/2/2021: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney
9/18/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)
9/8/2020: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment - Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment
8/31/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order) of 08/31/2020
4/15/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration In Support of Plaintiff's Request for Entry of court Judgment
6/6/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Tentative Ruling Regarding Defendant's Demurrer to Complaint
5/22/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service
2/22/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
2/22/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
Hearing02/02/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 02/02/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25
DocketMinute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Status of Defendant's Filing of an An...)
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Status of Defendant's Filing of an Answer scheduled for 02/18/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 02/18/2021; Result Type to Held
DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by: Norma E. Funes (Defendant)
DocketAnswer; Filed by: Norma E. Funes (Defendant)
DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by: Genaro J. Bautista (Defendant); Norma E. Funes (Defendant)
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Status of Defendant's Filing of an Answer scheduled for 02/18/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25
DocketOn the Complaint filed by FML Management Corp. on 02/22/2019, Default entered on 06/05/2019, Vacated - .
DocketMinute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)
DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Genaro J. Bautista (Defendant); As to: FML Management Corp. (Plaintiff); Service Cost Waived: No
DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: E. Norma Funes (Defendant); As to: FML Management Corp. (Plaintiff); Service Date: 03/27/19; Service Cost: 0.00; Service Cost Waived: No
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/21/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/25/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
DocketComplaint; Filed by: FML Management Corp. (Plaintiff); As to: Genaro J. Bautista (Defendant); E. Norma Funes (Defendant); Martha Rivera (Defendant)
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: FML Management Corp. (Plaintiff); As to: Genaro J. Bautista (Defendant); E. Norma Funes (Defendant); Martha Rivera (Defendant)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: FML Management Corp. (Plaintiff); As to: Genaro J. Bautista (Defendant); E. Norma Funes (Defendant); Martha Rivera (Defendant)
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk
Case Number: 19STLC01907 Hearing Date: November 05, 2020 Dept: 25
HEARING DATE: Thu., November 5, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25
CASE NAME: FML Management Corp. v. Bautista, et al. COMPL. FILED: 02-22-19
CASE NUMBER: 19STLC01907 JUDGMENT: 07-15-20
NOTICE: OK
PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR ORDER VACATING AND SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Genaro Bautista, in pro per
RESP. PARTY: None
MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT
(CCP § 473, 473.5)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Genaro Bautista’s Motion for Order Vacating and Setting Aside Default Judgment is DENIED.
SERVICE:
[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK
[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK
[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK
OPPOSITION: None filed as of November 3, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as of November 3, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
Background
On February 22, 2019, Plaintiff FML Management Corp. (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of a lease agreement against Defendants Genaro J. Bautista (“Bautista”), Norma E. Funes, and Martha Rivera (collectively, “Defendants”).
Defendant Bautista filed a demurrer to the Complaint on May 2, 2019. At the June 4, 2019 hearing on the demurrer, the Court noted that there was no appearance or submission by Defendant Bautista. (6/4/19 Minute Order.) As a result, the Court placed the demurrer off calendar. (Id.) The following day, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default as to Defendant Bautista, which was entered the same day. Seemingly unaware that the Court placed the demurrer off calendar, Defendant Bautista served notice of the Court’s tentative ruling granting the demurrer on June 6, 2019.
On July 15, 2020, a default judgment was entered against Defendants in the amount of $9,744.13. (7/15/20 Judgment.)
On September 8, 2020, Defendant Bautista filed the instant Motion for Order Vacating and Setting Aside Default and Default Judgment (the “Motion”). To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
Request for Judicial Notice
Defendant Bautista requests judicial notice of (1) print out of a California Department of Real Estate Public search for FML Management Corp.; (2) print out of California Department of Real Estate Public Search for Lisa S. Ehrlich; (3) copy of the Articles of Incorporation for FML Management Corp. on file with the California Secretary of State; (4) copy of the Statement of Information for FML Management Corp. on file with the California Secretary of State filed on January 5, 2015; (5) copy of the Statement of Information for FML Management Corp. on file with the California Secretary of State filed on March 6, 2020; (6) Business and Professions Code section 10131; (7) Business and Professions Code section 10133; (8) copy of the FML Management Corp. Residential Property Management Agreement; (9) copy of Amendment Number One to the FML Management Corp. Residential Property Management Agreement.
However, the attached proof of service does not demonstrate that Defendant Bautista’s request for judicial notice was properly served on Plaintiff. Thus, his request for judicial notice is DENIED.
Legal Standard & Discussion
Defendant Bautista seeks to set aside the default and default judgment entered against him on the following grounds.
A. CCP § 473(b)
Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) provides that 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, subd. (b).) Applications for relief under this section must be made “within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months…” (Id.) (Italics added.)
Here, default against Defendant Bautista on June 5, 2019 and default judgment was entered on July 15, 2020. “The general rule is that the six-month period within which to bring a motion to vacate under section 473 runs from the date of the default, not from the judgment taken thereafter.” (Rutan v. Summit Sports, Inc. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 965, 970.) As this Motion was filed more than a year after default was entered, it is untimely under section 473, subdivision (b).
B. CCP § 473.5
Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 provides that, “when service of a summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action and a default or default judgment has been entered against him or her in the action, he or she may serve and file a notice of motion to set aside the default or default judgment and for leave to defend the action. The notice of motion shall be served within a reasonable time but in no event exceeding the earlier of: (i) two years after entry of default judgment against him or her; or (ii) 180 days after service on him or her of a written notice that the default or default judgment has been entered.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5, subd. (a).) (Italics added.)
Here, Defendant Bautista’s reliance on Section 473.5 is unavailing. Defendant Bautista does not argue he lacked actual notice of the action. Indeed, the Court’s record demonstrates he did have actual notice, as he filed a demurrer to the complaint on May 2, 2019. Defendant Bautista argues that he was not properly served with requests for entry of default of with notices of related cases. (Mot., p. 12:4-5.) However, as Defendant had actual notice of the action, relief from default is unavailable under Section 473.5.
C. CCP § 473(d)
Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subsection (d) provides “[t]he court may…on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” Generally, a motion to set aside a void default judgment can be filed at any time. (OC Interior Services, LLC. v. Nationstar Mtg. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1318, 1327.)
Defendant argues that the default and resulting default judgment are void because the Court sustained Defendant Bautista’s demurrer on June 4, 2019. (Mot., p. 10:10-11.) As noted above, Defendant Bautista filed a demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint on May 2, 2019, which was set for hearing for June 4, 2019. Prior to the June 4, 2019 hearing, the Court issued a tentative ruling granting Defendant Bautista’s demurrer. (Mot., Exh. D.) However, the Court did not adopt its tentative ruling. (6/4/19 Minute Order.) Instead, the Court, after noting there was no appearance or submission by Defendant Bautista, placed the demurrer off calendar. (Id.) There being no responsive pleading from Defendant Bautista, the Court properly entered default against him the following day pursuant to Plaintiff’s request. Thus, the Court finds the default judgment entered against Defendant Bautista is not void.
D. Equitable Relief
Lastly, Defendant Bautista cites Civil Code section 1710 to argue Plaintiff was deceitful and argues that this warrants equitable relief. (Mot., p. 12:7-24.)
“[A] trial court may ... vacate a default on equitable grounds even if statutory relief is unavailable. [Citation.]” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981.) “ ‘To set aside a judgment based upon extrinsic mistake one must satisfy three elements. First, the defaulted party must demonstrate that it has a meritorious case. Second[ ], the party seeking to set aside the default must articulate a satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense to the original action. Last[ ], the moving party must demonstrate diligence in seeking to set aside the default once ... discovered.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at 982.)
First, Defendant Bautista does not clearly identify what actions he contends were deceitful. In addition, and as already noted above, Defendant did present a defense to the original action by filing a demurrer, but seemingly abandoned that defense when he failed to appear at the hearing on the demurrer. As Defendant cannot meet the second element of the three-part test articulated in Rappleyea, relief from default on equitable grounds is likewise unavailable.
Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Genaro Bautista’s Motion for Order Vacating and Setting Aside Default Judgment is DENIED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases