This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/05/2020 at 21:20:13 (UTC).

SITRICK GROUP, LLC VS MONSTER, LLC

Case Summary

On 06/03/2019 SITRICK GROUP, LLC filed an Other - Arbitration lawsuit against MONSTER, LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2205

  • Filing Date:

    06/03/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other - Arbitration

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Petitioner

SITRICK GROUP LLC

Respondent

MONSTER LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorney

MYERS DAVID ALLEN

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Non-Appearance Case Review re Proposed Order Confirming Arbit...) of 03/03/2020

3/3/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Non-Appearance Case Review re Proposed Order Confirming Arbit...) of 03/03/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Appearance Case Review re Proposed Order Confirming Arbit...)

3/3/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Appearance Case Review re Proposed Order Confirming Arbit...)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

10/7/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Petition and Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, and Request for $14,367.40 in Post-Award Attorney Fees, Costs and Interest, From 8:30 a.

9/6/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Petition and Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, and Request for $14,367.40 in Post-Award Attorney Fees, Costs and Interest, From 8:30 a.

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

8/5/2019: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application For an Order Advancing Hearing Date on Petitioner's Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment, and For an Order Shortening Tim

8/1/2019: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application For an Order Advancing Hearing Date on Petitioner's Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment, and For an Order Shortening Tim

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application For an Order Advancing Hearin...)

8/1/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application For an Order Advancing Hearin...)

Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: Notice of Hearing on Petition and Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award

7/16/2019: Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: Notice of Hearing on Petition and Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

7/2/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

6/3/2019: Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

6/3/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons on Petition

6/3/2019: Summons - Summons on Petition

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

6/3/2019: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

6/3/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

6/3/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

3 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Non-Appearance Case Review re Proposed Order Confirming Arbit...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Non-Appearance Case Review re Proposed Order Confirming Arbit...) of 03/03/2020; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2019
  • DocketNon-Appearance Case Review re lodging of proposed judgment scheduled for 11/08/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 10/10/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2019
  • DocketNon-Appearance Case Review re lodging of proposed judgment scheduled for 11/08/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2019
  • DocketOrder Confirming Arbitration Award and Entering Judgment - Rejected; Submitted by: Sitrick Group, LLC (Petitioner); As to: Monster, LLC (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2019
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 10/07/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 10/07/2019; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2019
  • DocketUpdated -- Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award: Filed By: Sitrick Group, LLC (Petitioner); Result: Granted; Result Date: 10/07/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2019
  • DocketNotice of Continuance of Hearing on Petition and Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, and Request for $14,367.40 in Post-Award Attorney Fees, Costs and Interest, From 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Filed by: Sitrick Group, LLC (Petitioner); As to: Sitrick Group, LLC (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Sitrick Group, LLC (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
6 More Docket Entries
  • 07/16/2019
  • DocketMotion re: Notice of Hearing on Petition and Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award; Filed by: Sitrick Group, LLC (Petitioner); As to: Monster, LLC (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Sitrick Group, LLC (Petitioner); As to: Monster, LLC (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 10/07/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • DocketPetition to Confirm Arbitration Award; Filed by: Sitrick Group, LLC (Petitioner); As to: Monster, LLC (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • DocketSummons on Petition; Issued and Filed by: Sitrick Group, LLC (Petitioner); As to: Monster, LLC (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Sitrick Group, LLC (Petitioner); As to: Monster, LLC (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STCP02205    Hearing Date: February 16, 2021    Dept: 26


Case Number: 19STLC01608    Hearing Date: February 16, 2021    Dept: 26

Anchor General Ins. Co. v. Vasquez, et al.

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(CCP § 473(b), equity)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Jose Natividad Renteria’s Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Anchor General Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendants Luis Vasquez (dismissed on May 22, 2020) and Jose Natividad Renteria (“Defendant”) on February 14, 2019. Following Defendant’s failure to file a responsive pleading, the Court entered his default on April 25, 2019 and default judgment on June 24, 2020.

Defendant filed instant Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment was filed on December 21, 2020. Plaintiff filed an opposition on January 29, 2021 and Defendant replied on the same date.

Discussion

Defendant moves for relief from the default judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, subdivision (b) and on equitable grounds. The Court will consider each basis in turn.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b)

Under this statute, an application for relief must be made no more than six months after entry of the order from which relief is sought and must be accompanied by an affidavit of fault attesting to the mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect of the moving party or its attorney. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b); English v. IKON Business Solutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.) The motion is brought pursuant to discretionary relief prong of section 473, subdivision (b) for Defendant’s own mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect. (Motion, p. 1:16-18.)

The Court finds relief is not timely sought under the statute. Default was entered on April 25, 2019, but the instant Motion was not filed until 20 months later. The six-month deadline is jurisdictional and not subject to tolling. (Manson, Iver & York v. Black (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 36, 42.) Nor does it matter that the Motion was filed less than six months after entry of default judgment. As the Court of Appeals explained, if the court “could not set aside the [entry of] default, it also could not set aside the default judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, because that would be ‘an idle act.’” (Pulte Homes Corporation v. Williams Mechanical, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 267, 273.)

The Court additionally notes that a request for relief under the discretionary prong must not only be made within six months of entry of default, but within a reasonable time. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) Defendant has not demonstrated that he acted with reasonable diligence upon learning of the default. No information is provided regarding when Defendant learned of the entry of default, the request for which was mailed to him on April 9, 2019. (Request for Entry of Default, ¶6.) Nor does Defendant explain why he waited almost two years after entry of default to file the instant Motion. Even waiting almost six months to file the Motion after the entry of default judgment is not reasonable if no explanation for the delay is provided. (Stafford v. Mach (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1184.)

Therefore, the Court has no authority to relieve Defendant from the entry of default or default judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).

Equitable Relief

To qualify for equitable relief based on extrinsic mistake, which exists when circumstances extrinsic to the litigation have unfairly cost a party a hearing on the merits, the defendant must demonstrate: (1) “a meritorious case”; (2) “a satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense to the original action”; and (3) “diligence in seeking to set aside the default once the fraud [or mistake] had been discovered.” (Mechling v. Asbestos Defendants (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1241, 1245-1246 (citing In re Marriage of Stevenot (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1051, 1071).)

Defendant has not demonstrated that any extrinsic mistake or fraud caused the entry of default or default judgment. It is questionable whether Defendant’s own mistaken belief can be considered “extrinsic.” Furthermore, Defendant admits to being served with the Summons and Complaint in March 2019. (Motion, Vasquez Decl., ¶2.) He contends that he tried to prove his innocence directly to Plaintiff’s counsel instead of filing papers in court because he does not understand English well and lacks familiarity with court procedures. (Id. at ¶¶3-8.) The Summons with which Defendant was served, however, clearly explained in English and Spanish that a response to the lawsuit must be in proper legal form and that “[a] letter or phone call will not protect you.” Defendant does not explain how he continued to be confused despite receipt of these clear directions.

Finally, as noted above, Defendant has not demonstrated that he acted with reasonable diligence upon learning of the default.

Conclusion

Defendant Jose Natividad Renteria’s Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where SITRICK GROUP LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where MONSTER LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MYERS DAVID A. ESQ.