NEDA ARBABI VS EVER GIRON

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****9759    Hearing Date: December 16, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff, Neda Arbabi filed this action against Defendant, Ever Giron for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff filed the complaint on 7/25/17. On 9/08/17, she filed proof of service of the summons and complaint. The POS indicates a registered process server served Defendant by personal service at his home address. On 1/18/18, at Plaintiff’s request, the Clerk entered Defendant’s default. On 2/04/19, Plaintiff filed papers in support of her request for default judgment. On 6/14/19, the Court entered Judgment in Plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $59,415.59.

2. BC669698

On 7/24/17, David Mazmanyan filed BC699698 against Ever Giron, Giron & Sons Trucking, Mohammad Arbabi, and Neda Arbabi for damages arising out of the same automobile accident that forms the basis of the instant case. On 8/14/18, Giron filed an answer to the complaint. On 12/26/18, because the parties settled the action, Mazmanyan filed a request for dismissal of the entire action.

3. Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment

At this time, Giron moves to vacate the default and default judgment against him in the instant case. He moves on a variety of grounds, but his primary argument is that, to the extent he received notice of this lawsuit (which he denies), he confused the documents and assumed they were from BC699698, such that he assumed his attorney was handling them and did nothing. He moves to vacate the default and default judgment per CCP ;473(b), ;473.5, and the Court’s inherent equitable powers.

Plaintiff argues Giron was served with all of the necessary papers, the motion is not timely, and Plaintiff will be prejudiced if the motion is granted.

While this case does not fit squarely within the confines of ;473(b), ;473.5, and/or the Court’s inherent equitable powers, the Court finds the default and default judgment must be set aside. Plaintiff had an obligation, upon filing this lawsuit, to file a Notice of Related Cases. CRC 3.300(b) provides, “Whenever a party in a civil action knows or learns that the action or proceeding is related to another action or proceeding pending, dismissed, or disposed of by judgment in any state or federal court in California, the party must serve and file a Notice of Related Case.” CRC 3.300(d) required Plaintiff to serve the Notice of Related Case on all parties to all related lawsuits. CRC 3.300(e) required Plaintiff to do this within fifteen days of becoming aware the two lawsuits existed; because Plaintiff chose to file the second lawsuit, rather than to file a cross-complaint in the already pending action, she was immediately aware that both lawsuits existed.

Notably, in Plaintiff’s default judgment papers, her caption indicated the two cases were “related.” Thus, it is clear Plaintiff had notice that both cases existed, but chose not to file the required Notice. See Exhibits K and L to the moving papers herein.

It is entirely clear that these two lawsuits are related within the meaning of CRC 3.300(a). Notice to Giron that the two actions were related would have resulted in notice to his attorney. It is clear that Giron, through his insurance, would have answered the complaint if he had been aware of it; there is no reason he would have answered one complaint and not the other.

The motion to vacate default and default judgment is therefore granted. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s prejudice argument in support of her opposition patently lacks merit. Plaintiff argues she will have to bring the lawsuit to conclusion by 7/25/22 or risk mandatory dismissal; this is her only argument that she will be prejudiced. 7/25/22 is more than two years from now, and the Court typically sets matters for trial 1.5 years after the lawsuit is filed. There is no reason to believe this simple automobile accident case cannot go to trial within the allotted time.

The motion is granted. Defendant is ordered to file a separate copy of his answer within five days. The Court sets a trial date in one year, on Wednesday, 12/16/20 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Court sets an FSC on Wednesday, 12/02/20 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 3. All discovery and expert dates run from the 12/16/20 trial date, as though it were the original trial date in the action.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.