This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/29/2019 at 12:42:28 (UTC).

KATHARINE FRAIJO VS. DANIEL HITZKE, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 05/09/2018 a Contract - Professional Negligence case was filed by KATHARINE FRAIJO against DANIEL HITZKE in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1785

  • Filing Date:

    05/09/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Professional Negligence

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MARK C. KIM

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

KATHARINE FRAIJO

FRAIJO KATHARINE

Defendants

DANIEL HITZKE

DOES 1 THROUGH 10

LEGACY GROUP FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE

THOMAS FALLON

HITZKE & ASSOCIATES

FALLON THOMAS

HITZKE DANIEL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

VASQUEZ ESTRADA & CONWAY LLP(M A VASQUEZ)

VASQUEZ ESTRADA & CONWAY LLPM A VASQUEZ

VASQUEZ MICHAEL ANTHONY

Attorney at Vasquez Estrada & Conway LLP

1000 4Th St Ste 500

San Rafael, CA 94901

 

Court Documents

Objection - OBJECTION PLAINTIFF KATHARINE FRAIJO'S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF DEF DANIEL HITZKE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

11/18/2019: Objection - OBJECTION PLAINTIFF KATHARINE FRAIJO'S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF DEF DANIEL HITZKE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OBJECTIONS

11/22/2019: Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OBJECTIONS

Memorandum - MEMORANDUM PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM RE: DEFENDANT HITZKE'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

11/25/2019: Memorandum - MEMORANDUM PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM RE: DEFENDANT HITZKE'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MICHAEL A. VASQUEZ IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT; RE; NOMILITARY SERVICE; AND INTEREST COMPUTATIONS

8/15/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MICHAEL A. VASQUEZ IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT; RE; NOMILITARY SERVICE; AND INTEREST COMPUTATIONS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CCP 585 DEFAULT PACKET)

8/21/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CCP 585 DEFAULT PACKET)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; LEGACY EVENT TYPE)

4/9/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; LEGACY EVENT TYPE)

Notice of Case Management Conference

5/9/2018: Notice of Case Management Conference

Civil Case Cover Sheet

5/9/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl

6/7/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

7/13/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl

7/20/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-07-23 00:00:00

7/23/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-07-23 00:00:00

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Default Entered

7/30/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Default Entered

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-08-16 00:00:00

8/16/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-08-16 00:00:00

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint -

7/20/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint -

Minute Order - (Case Management Conference and Order to Show Cause re Proof o...)

10/9/2018: Minute Order - (Case Management Conference and Order to Show Cause re Proof o...)

Notice - Of Entry Of Minute Order

8/31/2018: Notice - Of Entry Of Minute Order

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment -

7/31/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment -

46 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/03/2019
  • Hearing12/03/2019 at 08:30 AM in Department S27 at 275 Magnolia, Long Beach, CA 90802; Hearing - Other re: General Damages & Attonry Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2019
  • Hearing12/03/2019 at 08:30 AM in Department S27 at 275 Magnolia, Long Beach, CA 90802; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • DocketMemorandum (Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum Re: Defendant Hitzke's Reply to opposition to Motion to Set Aside Default); Filed by KATHARINE FRAIJO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2019
  • DocketReply (Reply to Opposition to Motion to Set Aside Default); Filed by DANIEL HITZKE (Defendant); HITZKE & ASSOCIATES (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2019
  • DocketReply (Reply to objections); Filed by DANIEL HITZKE (Defendant); HITZKE & ASSOCIATES (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (DECLARATION OF MICHAEL A. VASQUEZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSIITON TO DEF DANIEL HITZKE AND HITZKE & ASSOCIATES MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT); Filed by KATHARINE FRAIJO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2019
  • DocketOpposition (PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DANIEL HITZKE AND HITZKE & ASSOCIATES MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT); Filed by KATHARINE FRAIJO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2019
  • DocketObjection (PLAINTIFF KATHARINE FRAIJO'S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF DEF DANIEL HITZKE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT); Filed by KATHARINE FRAIJO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by KATHARINE FRAIJO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Hearing - Other (reGeneral Damages & Attonry Fees) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
58 More Docket Entries
  • 06/26/2018
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by KATHARINE FRAIJO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by KATHARINE FRAIJO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • DocketOrder (To Show Cause Hearing)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by KATHARINE FRAIJO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: NC061785    Hearing Date: December 03, 2019    Dept: S27

INTRODUCTION

Defendants Daniel Hitzke and Hitzke & Associates move to vacate defaults entered against them under the discretionary provision of CCP §473(b). He also appears to rely on the timing provisions of CCP §473.5.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant do not dispute proper service of the summons and complaint.

This litigation was filed on May 9, 2018.

Defendants were served on June 1, 2018.

Default was entered as against Daniel Hitzke, individually, on July 13, 2018.

Default was entered against Hitzke & Associates on September 25, 2018.

No judgment has been entered to date against any Defendant.

This motion was filed on September 19, 2019.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Briefly, Plaintiff alleges Defendants represented her in a workers’ compensation proceeding. The case settled. Hitzke advised Plaintiff that she was required to place about $47,000 of a $98,000 settlement into a “Medicare Set Aside” account. Hitzke referred Plaintiff to Co-Defendants Thomas Fallon and Legacy Group Financial and Insurance Services, Inc. to set up and maintain this account. Plaintiff alleges that it was a misrepresentation that this set-aside account was necessary. The Co-Defendants embezzled the funds entrusted to them.

TIMELINESS

Under CCP §473(b): “Application for this relief . . . shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” This limitation is jurisdictional. This motion was not filed within six months of the entry of default for either Defendant.

Defendants seek to avoid the limitation by relying on CCP §473.5 which has a more generous window for relief:

“(a) 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 and filed within a reasonable time, but in no event exceeding the earlier of: (i) two years after entry of a 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.”

As can be seen by the plain language of the statute, it has no application to the present case. This is not a case where “service of a summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action.”

To the contrary, Mr. Hitzke does not dispute Defendants were served in a method that resulted in actual notice. Mr. Hitzke, an attorney, declares he believed claims filed against him “were defended by the Reif Law group.” In September 2018 he received notice from his liability insurance carrier that they were denying coverage for Plaintiff Fraijo’s claim. He contacted the Reif Law Group to discuss this development and they “continued to work with me and led me to believe they were continuing to represent me and would contest denial of coverage.” He did not realize Reif Law group was not representing him until August 2019 when a representative of the law group sent him an e-mail stating they would not be representing him absent payment of a large retainer. He admits he should not have assumed he was being represented. He was not served with request for entry of default.

Had this motion been timely, the court might have agreed that the evidence supports excusable neglect, but the issue of timeliness is jurisdictional. He cannot import the timing requirements of CCP §473.5 into CCP §473(b). He had six months from entry of default to set it aside. He did not do so. Even though judgment has not been entered, the default cannot be set aside under CCP §473.

“Williams's motion was filed less than six months after entry of the default judgment, but more than six months after entry of its default. The trial court therefore could not set aside the default under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. And because it could not set aside the default, it also could not set aside the default judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, because that would be ‘“an idle act.”’ (Howard Greer Custom Originals v. Capritti (1950) 35 Cal.2d 886, 888.) ‘“If the judgment were vacated, it would be the duty of the court immediately to render another judgment of like effect, and the defendants, still being in default, could not be heard in opposition thereto. …”’ (Id. at p. 889; accord, Weiss v. Blumencranc (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 536, 541; Koski v. U-Haul Co. (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 640, 643.)

We therefore conclude that Williams was not entitled to relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473.” (Pulte Homes Corp. v. Williams Mechanical, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 267, 273.)

Defendant cannot obtain relief under CCP §473(b) or §473.5.

The motion is denied.