Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/16/2019 at 11:49:28 (UTC).

JOSE MORALES VS WILLIAM CHINN

Case Summary

On 04/19/2016 JOSE MORALES filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against WILLIAM CHINN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7423

  • Filing Date:

    04/19/2016

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MORALES JOSE

Defendants and Respondents

CHINN WILLIAM

DOES 1-15

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

O'NEIL & MATUSEK LLP

 

Court Documents

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

12/21/2017: ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

12/21/2017: ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

2/15/2018: ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

2/28/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

Minute Order

2/28/2018: Minute Order

PLAINTIFF'S DEFAULT PROVE-UP BRIEF

2/28/2018: PLAINTIFF'S DEFAULT PROVE-UP BRIEF

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

2/28/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

JUDGMENT

3/2/2018: JUDGMENT

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

4/19/2016: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

SUMMONS

4/19/2016: SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

7/29/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

STATEMENT OF DAMAGES PURSUANT TO CCP 425.11

9/1/2016: STATEMENT OF DAMAGES PURSUANT TO CCP 425.11

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

9/1/2016: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Minute Order

10/3/2017: Minute Order

2 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/10/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 98; Unknown Event Type - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2018
  • Judgment; Filed by Jose Morales (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2018
  • JUDGMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 98; (Order to Show Cause; Matter continued) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • Miscellaneous-Other; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • Statement of Facts; Filed by Jose Morales (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by Jose Morales (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • PLAINTIFF'S DEFAULT PROVE-UP BRIEF

    Read MoreRead Less
9 More Docket Entries
  • 10/03/2017
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2016
  • Default Entered; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2016
  • Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2016
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2016
  • STATEMENT OF DAMAGES PURSUANT TO CCP 425.11

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jose Morales (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2016
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Jose Morales (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC617423    Hearing Date: March 02, 2021    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

JOSE MORALES,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

WILLIAM CHINN, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

BC617423

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT ISSUE AN ORDER FOR SALE OF DWELLING

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

March 2, 2021

This application was filed by Judgment Creditor Jose Morales (“Morales”), who requests an Order to Show Cause why the Court should not issue an order to sell Judgment Debtor William Chinn’s (“Chinn”) dwelling.

On March 2, 2018, Morales obtained a default judgment against Chinn.  On November 5, 2020, Morales filed a writ of execution.  On December 23, 2020, Morales filed this Application.  On December 30, 2021, the Court granted Chinn’s ex parte application for a stay of execution on the judgment, pending the hearing of Chinn’s motion to set aside default judgment. On February 3, 2021, the Court granted Chinn’s motion to set aside default judgment.  

As the default judgment has been set aside, there is no judgment to enforce and Morales’s application is DENIED as moot.  

Moving party to give notice.

2nd day of March 2021

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC617423    Hearing Date: February 03, 2021    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

JOSE MORALES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WILLIAM CHINN,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.: BC617423

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO VACATE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

February 3, 2021

On April 19, 2016, Plaintiff Jose Morales filed this action against Defendant William Chinn arising from an April 22, 2014 bicycle vs. automobile collision.  Plaintiff served the Complaint on Defendant on or about July 26, 2016.  Default was entered against Defendant on September 1, 2016.  Judgment was entered on March 1, 2018.  

On November 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed a writ of executionOn December 29, 2020, Defendant applied ex parte for a stay of execution or, in the alternative, an order specially setting hearing on motion to set aside default judgment.  On January 6, 2021, Defendant filed this Motion to set aside the default judgment on equitable grounds.  

Apart from any statute, courts have the inherent authority to vacate a default and default judgment on equitable grounds such as extrinsic fraud or extrinsic mistake.”  (Bae v. T.D. Service Co. of Arizona (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 89, 97.)  A motion seeking such equitable relief “‘may be brought on such ground even though the statutory period [for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b)] has run.’ [Citation.]”  (Ibid.)  Unlike motions to vacate under section 473, where any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief, “[w]hen a default judgment has been obtained, equitable relief may be given only in exceptional circumstances.”  (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981.)

Extrinsic mistake is “a term broadly applied when circumstances extrinsic to the litigation have unfairly cost a party a hearing on the merits.”  (Rappleyea, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 981.)  Relief on equitable grounds is subject to a three part test: (1) a meritorious defense; (2) a satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense sooner; and (3) diligence upon learning of default.  (Stiles v. Wallis (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1143, 1147-1148.)  

First, Defendant argues he has a meritorious defense because the traffic collision report states that Plaintiff violated Los Angeles Municipal Code section 56.15.1 by riding his bicycle on a sidewalk.  However, the traffic collision report is inadmissible as evidence.  Nevertheless, both parties appear to agree that Plaintiff was riding his bicycle on his sidewalk at the time of the accident.  Plaintiff argues that there is no fact that would support a conclusion that he operated his bicycle in an ordinary and safe manner and that he did not violate section 56.15(1) because that only prohibits riding on a sidewalk “in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.” (Opp., 13:6-20.)  The Court disagrees.  Defendant claims that Plaintiff was riding his bicycle on the sidewalk in the opposite direction of traffic.  This can be considered a meritorious defense on Defendant’s behalf that Plaintiff was at fault for the accident.  

As for the second part of the test, “[w]here a default is entered because defendant has relied upon a codefendant or other interested party to defend, the question is whether the defendant was reasonably justified under the circumstances in his reliance or whether his neglect at attend to the matter was inexcusable.”  (Weitz v. Yankosky (1966) 63 Cal.2d 849, 855.)  In Fasuyi v. Permatex, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 681, the defendant forwarded a summons and complaint to its insurance broker, who then forwarded the documents to the insurance carrier.  (Id. at p. 694.)  The broker requested that the claims managers contact defendant directly.  (Ibid.)  The claims manger provided written confirmation to the broker and the broker was under the expectation that insurer would retain counsel and appear on defendant’s behalf.  (Ibid.)  However, the insurance carrier failed to file a responsive pleading, and a default and default judgment were entered.  (Ibid.)  The defendant knew nothing about the default or the default judgment until it was served with the default judgment.  (Ibid.) The court found this “was a classic instance of mistake and inadvertence—but not on the part of [defendant], which did what all corporations do when served with a complaint: send it to the carrier for handling.  Thus . . . there are abundant grounds for reversal under [section 473, subdivision (b)] because of mistake, inadvertence and excusable neglect.”  (Ibid.)

Defendant declares that he reported the accident promptly to Mercury Insurance Company, his insurance carrier, who kept him informed of Mercury’s efforts to resolve the case.  (Chinn Decl., ¶ 3.)  He was eventually advised that he would be served with a complaint and given instructions on what to do if and when he was served.   (Chinn Decl., ¶ 3.)  He was served with the Complaint on or around July 26, 2016, at which point he promptly notified his insurance broker and provided him with a copy of the documents.  (Chinn Decl., ¶ 4.)  An adjuster with Mercury Insurance called and told him they had received the complaint and would take care of the matter.  (Chinn Decl., ¶ 4.)  Defendant did not hear anything further about the matter and assumed it was resolved.  (Chinn Decl., ¶ 4.)  After he received the Notice of Levy and Writ of Execution served on December 11, 2002, he notified Mercury.  (Chinn Decl., ¶ 4.)  He further states he did not have notice of the default in the matter and that had he known that the matter was not being litigated or defended by Mercury, he would have requested a defense.  (Chinn Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.)  

Finally, for the third part of the test, the defendant “must act diligently in making his motion [for relief] after he learns of the default judgment.”  (Weitz, supra, 63 Cal.2d at pp. 856-857.)  The moving party must show relief was sought within a reasonable time whether or not the other party suffered any prejudice from the delay.  (Weitz, supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 857.)  The same considerations in determining whether default judgment was secured by excusable extrinsic mistake may properly be applicable in determining whether a delay in moving to set aside default is excusable.  (Id. at pp. 857-858.) In Weitz, the defendant filed his motion to set aside within three weeks of learning of the default judgment against him.  (Id. at p. 858.)

Here, Defendant sought ex parte relief on December 29, 2020 after his insurance carrier assigned him defense counsel on December 15, 2020.  The Court finds Defendant acted diligently and within a reasonable time.  

Defendant has met all three elements to show equitable grounds exists to vacate the default on the basis of extrinsic mistake.  Defendant’s Motion to set aside the default judgment is GRANTED. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 3rd day of February 2021

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court