This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/29/2021 at 00:10:42 (UTC).

INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY VS ROSANA MADARIAGA, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 05/04/2020 INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY filed a Contract - Insurance lawsuit against ROSANA MADARIAGA. 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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3802

  • Filing Date:

    05/04/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Insurance

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendants

HERNANDEZ JAIME

MADARIAGA ROSANA AKA ROSANA FLORES AKA ROSANA MADARIGA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GREEN SUSAN HOPE

 

Court Documents

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition of Plaintiff Infinity Insurance Company to Motion to Vacate Defaults; Declaration of Susan H. Green in Support thereof

11/10/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition of Plaintiff Infinity Insurance Company to Motion to Vacate Defaults; Declaration of Susan H. Green in Support thereof

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

10/7/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

10/7/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

6/25/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

6/25/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

10/12/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Summary of the Case - Summary of the Case

10/12/2021: Summary of the Case - Summary of the Case

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

10/12/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment - Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

10/12/2021: Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment - Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

10/12/2021: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment - Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment

10/19/2021: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment - Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

11/1/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

5/4/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for [First Amended Standing Order, Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case]

5/18/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for [First Amended Standing Order, Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case]

Summons - Summons on Complaint

5/4/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

5/4/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

5/4/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

5/4/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/08/2023
  • Hearing05/08/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2021
  • Hearing11/29/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2021
  • DocketOpposition of Plaintiff Infinity Insurance Company to Motion to Vacate Defaults; Declaration of Susan H. Green in Support thereof; Filed by: Infinity Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 11/01/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court on 11/01/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5) scheduled for 11/29/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2021
  • DocketMotion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment; Filed by: Rosana Madariaga (Defendant); Jaime Hernandez (Defendant); As to: Rosana Madariaga (Defendant); Jaime Hernandez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2021
  • DocketSummary of the Case; Filed by: Infinity Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2021
  • DocketDeclaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment; Filed by: Infinity Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by: Infinity Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
10 More Docket Entries
  • 05/18/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for [First Amended Standing Order, Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case]; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/08/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 11/01/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Infinity Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Rosana Madariaga (Defendant); Jaime Hernandez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Infinity Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Rosana Madariaga (Defendant); Jaime Hernandez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Infinity Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Rosana Madariaga (Defendant); Jaime Hernandez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Infinity Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Rosana Madariaga (Defendant); Jaime Hernandez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STLC03802 Hearing Date: November 29, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendants\r\nRosana Madariaga and Jaime Hernandez

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Infinity Insurance Company

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 473(b))

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants\r\nRosana Madariaga and Jaime Hernandez’s Motion to Set aside Default is CONTINUED\r\nTO DECEMBER 30, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET\r\nCOURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing,\r\nDefendants must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the issues\r\ndiscussed herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off\r\ncalendar or denied.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: Filed on November 10,\r\n2021 [ ] Late [ ]\r\nNone

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof November 18, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On May 4, 2020, Plaintiff Infinity\r\nInsurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Rosana\r\nMadariaga aka Rosana Flores aka Rosana Madariga (“Madariaga”) and Jaime\r\nHernandez (“Hernandez”). Following their failure to respond, default was\r\nentered against Defendant Hernandez on October 7, 2020 and against Defendant\r\nMadariaga on June 25, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants filed the instant Motion\r\nto Set Aside Default (the “Motion”) on October 19, 2021. Plaintiff filed an\r\nopposition on November 10. No reply brief was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard & Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants seek\r\nrelief pursuant to the mandatory provision of Code of Civil Procedure section\r\n473, subdivision (b). (Mot., pp. 1-2.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“Section 473(b) provides for both\r\ndiscretionary and mandatory relief. [Citation.]” (Pagnini\r\nv. Union Bank, N.A. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 298, 302.) An application for relief under this section must be made no more\r\nthan six months after entry of the judgment, dismissal, order, or other\r\nproceeding from which relief is sought and must be accompanied by an affidavit\r\nof fault attesting to the mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect of the\r\nmoving party or its attorney. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b); English v. IKON Business Solutions\r\n(2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.) In addition, an application for relief under\r\nthis section “shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading\r\nproposed to be filed herein, otherwise the application shall not be granted.”\r\n(Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) Relief under this section is mandatory\r\nwhen based on an attorney affidavit of fault; otherwise, it is discretionary. (Id.)\r\nWhen relief from default and default judgment is the attorney’s fault, the\r\nsix-month period starts to run from the date of the entry of the default\r\njudgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, sub. (b); Sugasawara v. Newland (1994)\r\n27 Cal.App.4th 294, 295.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, no default judgment has yet been\r\nentered and the Motion is accompanied by a copy of Defendants’ proposed general\r\ndenial. (Mot., Exh. A.) Defendants seek to set aside the defaults entered\r\nagainst them due to Defendants’ counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or\r\nexcusable neglect. (Id. at p. 3.) Specifically, counsel states that\r\nPlaintiff commenced this action on May 4, 2020, that “apparently service of\r\nprocess was effectuated”, and that “the complaints were brought to [his]\r\noffice.” (Id., Algorri Decl., ¶ 2.) Counsel states that due to a\r\nclerical error, he did not enter a responsive pleading due date in his office’s\r\ntickler system. (Id.) On or about October 12, counsel received\r\nPlaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment, at which time counsel\r\nreviewed his calendar and Defendants’ file and discovered that he had erroneously\r\n“filed the notice [he] received in the clients’ file without calendaring the\r\nsame.” (Id. at ¶¶ 3-4.) But for this error, counsel\r\nstates, he would have opposed the default judgment request. (Id. at ¶ 4.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff\r\nopposes the Motion on the basis that Defendants’ counsel’s declaration is\r\npurposefully vague. (Oppo., p. 2-4.) Specifically, Plaintiff points out that\r\nDefendant Hernandez was substitute served with the Complaint on July 20, 2020\r\nand his default was entered on October 7, 2020. (Id. at p. 2.) Defendant\r\nMadariaga, on the other hand, was substitute served on May 6, 2021, nearly 10\r\nmonths after Defendant Hernandez, and her default was entered on June 25, 2021.\r\n(Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Counsel\r\ndoes not clarify when he received the Summons and Complaint from Defendants and\r\nwhether he received these documents at separate times or together. Notably, the\r\nnotice of Motion states that the motion seeks to set aside the default as to\r\nboth Defendants entered on June 25, 2021, but as noted above, default as to\r\nDefendant Hernandez was entered on October 7, 2020. If Defendant Hernandez,\r\nafter being served with the Summons and Complaint, did not timely notify his\r\nattorney of the service and allowed default to be entered, then relief as to\r\nDefendant Hernandez under the mandatory provision of Section 473, subdivision\r\n(b), would be improper .

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants argue the law strongly\r\nfavors disposition of actions on their merits and any doubts in applying\r\nsection 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief. (Mot., pp.\r\n4-5.) Indeed, “ ‘ “[t]he policy of the law is to have every litigated case\r\ntried upon its merits, and it looks with disfavor upon a party, who, regardless\r\nof the merits of the case, attempts to take advantage of the mistake, surprise,\r\ninadvertence, or neglect of his adversary.” ’ [Citations.] ‘Because the law\r\nfavors disposing of the cases on their merits, “any doubts applying section 473\r\nmust be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default [citations].\r\nTherefore, a trial court order denying relief is scrutinized more carefully\r\nthan an order permitting trial on the merits.” ’ [Citations.]” ’ ” (Fayusi\r\nv. Permatex, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 681, 696.) However, Defendants\r\nmust still demonstrate relief is proper under this Section.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In the interest of justice and resolving the underlying\r\ncontroversy on the merits, the hearing is CONTINUED so that Defendants may\r\nsubmit supplemental papers demonstrating both are entitled to relief.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants\r\nRosana Madariaga and Jaime Hernandez’s Motion to Set aside Default is CONTINUED\r\nTO DECEMBER 30, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET\r\nCOURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing,\r\nDefendants must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the issues\r\ndiscussed herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off\r\ncalendar or denied.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give notice.\r\n

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GREEN SUSAN HOPE