This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/29/2019 at 00:27:24 (UTC).

MARTHA LAGUNAS VS. VIRGINIA HANSON

Case Summary

On 11/24/2015 MARTHA LAGUNAS filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against VIRGINIA HANSON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WILLIAM D. STEWART. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4468

  • Filing Date:

    11/24/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

WILLIAM D. STEWART

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

LAGUNAS MARTHA

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

HANSON VIRGINIA

ESTATE OF VIRGINIA CASAS HANSON DOE 1

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

RAYMOND PEREZ ESQ.

PEREZ RAYMOND

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

HOLLAND DONNELLY & MISHLER

DONNELLY MICHAEL JOHN

 

Court Documents

Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/24/2015: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Management Conference

11/24/2015: Notice of Case Management Conference

Legacy Document

11/24/2015: Legacy Document

Answer

2/2/2016: Answer

Minute Order

2/3/2016: Minute Order

Legacy Document

1/4/2017: Legacy Document

Minute Order

1/9/2017: Minute Order

Legacy Document

5/9/2017: Legacy Document

Minute Order

7/20/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

9/7/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

12/7/2017: Minute Order

Legacy Document

12/18/2017: Legacy Document

Minute Order

5/2/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

5/7/2018: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

8/10/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

8/13/2018: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

9/19/2018: Minute Order

Proof of Personal Service

1/14/2019: Proof of Personal Service

21 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/13/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Raymond Perez (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Martha Lagunas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • Notice of Ruling

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Martha Lagunas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A; Status Conference (Status Conference; Matter continued) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-09-19 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2018
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious Name)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2018
  • Notice of Ruling

    Read MoreRead Less
31 More Docket Entries
  • 02/08/2016
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service (OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Advanced to a Previous Date) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2016
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A; Court Order (Court Order; OSC Discharged) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2016
  • Minute order entered: 2016-02-03 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2016
  • Cross-Compl fld- No Summons Issued; Filed by Virginia Hanson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2016
  • Answer; Filed by Virginia Hanson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2015
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2015
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2015
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Martha Lagunas (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2015
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2015
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC064468    Hearing Date: November 08, 2019    Dept: A

Lagunas v Hanson

 

Motion to Set Aside

 

Calendar:

13

 

 

Case No.:

EC064468

 

 

Hearing Date:

November 08, 2019

 

 

Action Filed:

November 24, 2015

 

 

Trial Date:

Not Set

 

 

 

MP:

Defendant The Estate of Virginia Casas Hanson

RP:

Plaintiff Martha Lagunas

 

 

ALLEGATIONS:

Plaintiff Martha Lagunas (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on July 01, 2014, she entered into an oral agreement with Defendant Virginia Hanson (“Hanson”), where the parties agreed that Plaintiff would buy Hanson’s business for a certain sum.  Plaintiff alleges that it became evident that the terms of the agreement could not be completed, such that the parties agreed to part ways and Hanson would reimburse Plaintiff for monies advanced.  Plaintiff alleges that Hanson failed to reimburse Plaintiff in the amount of $47,585.47.

 

The Complaint, filed November 24, 2015, alleges two causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; and (2) Common Counts.  On August 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Doe amendment naming The Estate of Virginia Casas Hanson (the “Defendant”) as a party to the action.

 

 

PRESENTATION:

Defendant filed the instant motion on September 05, 2019, seeking to set aside the default entered against Defendant.  Opposition was received on October 04, 2019.  No reply brief has been received.

 

 

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Defendant moves to set aside the entry of default, and leave to file an Answer.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

Standard of Review – Code Civ. Proc. §473(b) provides that the trial 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.”  In order for the Court to grant discretionary relief, the moving party must (1) “be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein,” (2) “be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months,” but (3) “[n]o affidavit or declaration of merits shall be required of the moving party.”  Code Civ. Proc. §473(b).  Whether the filing is made within a reasonable time is a matter left to the discretion of the trial court, and depends upon the specific circumstances of the delay, including the cause for the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.  Minick v. City of Petaluma (2016) 3 Cal. App. 5th 15; Comunidad En Accion v. Los Angeles City Council (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 1116, 1133–34.

 

In addition to the discretionary provisions of Code Civ. Proc. §473(b), “the court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney's sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.”  The purpose of the mandatory provision is to provide a client the opportunity to litigate a claim on its merits even though their attorney made a mistake in representation.  See Yeap v. Leake (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 591 abrogated by Hossain v. Hossain (2007) 157 Cal. App. 4th 454.  It mandates that the court grant relief unless it finds that the default was not in fact caused by lawyer error – which functions as both a credibility and causation testing device.  Milton v. Perceptual Development Corp. (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 861.

 

---

 

Pursuant to the Declaration of Jason J. Allison, attesting to the attorney’s fault for the entry of default, and the Court’s determination that the motion is both timely and in the proper form, the Court will grant the instant motion.  In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel represents his own surprise regarding the sequence of events, attesting that Defendant had previously presented to the Court in February but nevertheless failed to file a responsive pleading, and failed to appear at the trial on August 19, 2019.  Pursuant to these irregularities, Plaintiff requests $3,850.00 in attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §473(b), which provides that “[t]he court shall, whenever relief is granted based on an attorney’s affidavit of fault, direct the attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties.”

 

On review of the requested attorney’s fees, the Court will order payment of $1,400.00 in attorney’s fees based on the 4 hours spent appearing and preparing opposition for the instant motion at a rate of $350/hr.  The Court does not consider the 7 hours spent preparing for trial to be within the ambit of the motion, which, in the Court’s view, is limited to the time spend responding to the motion to set aside.

 

---

 

RULING:  GRANT:  Sanctions ordered in the amount of $1,400.00

 

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

 

ORDER

 

Defendant The Estate of Virginia Casas Hanson’s Motion to Set Aside came on regularly for hearing on November 08, 2019, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

 

THE MOTION IS GRANTED; AND

DEFENDANT IS ORDERED TO PAY PLAINTIFF $1,400.00 IN ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIV. PROC. §473(b).

 

 

 

DATE:  _______________                            _______________________________

                                                                        JUDGE

Please submit a removal request if you do not want this court record to appear in search engine results.