Rodriguez vs. Melo

Moving party only met and conferred in writing, and there is no evidence of any discussions regarding court reporter contentions. (Gutenplan Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. K [email exchange].) Further, even assuming written efforts only were sufficient, moving party has not provided a copy of any meet and confer letter, nor any evidence of its substance; thus, there is no way for the court to determine whether moving party met and conferred regarding “each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040, subd. (a).)

Accordingly, the motions are DENIED.

Clerk shall give notice.

6. Rodriguez vs. Melo

25-01470408

1. Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default 2. Case Management Conference

Defendant Manuel Rivera Melo’s motion to set aside default and/or default judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 is DENIED.

Defendant has brought this motion solely pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5.

Section 473.5 addresses the situation where the defendant did not receive actual notice in time to defend, despite effective service. (California Capital Ins. Co. v. Hoehn (2024) 17 Cal.5th 207, 215.) In order to obtain relief under section 473.5, defendant must show, among other things, that defendant did not receive actual notice of the summons and complaint in time to defend the action (i.e., in time to file an answer to the complaint or other responsive pleading). (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5; Rios v.

Singh (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 871, 885.) The defendant must establish each of these things through admissible evidence. (Anastos v. Lee (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1314, 1318; Tunis v. Barrow (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1069, 1077-1078.) In addition, the motion must be accompanied by “a copy of the answer, motion, or other pleading proposed to be filed in the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5, subd. (b).)

Here, defendant admits he had actual notice of this action by 3/29/25. (Melo Decl. ¶ 7 [“I first learned about this lawsuit on or around March 29, 2025, in the evening, when I found the documents on my porch.”].) This was almost five months before defendant’s default was entered on 8/26/25. Relief under section 473.5 is not available where, as here, the defendant had actual notice of the summons and complaint in time to defend the action but failed to file an answer or other

responsive pleading for months, resulting in his default. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5, subd. (a).)

Further, while defendant has submitted a proposed cross-complaint in support of the motion, he has failed to submit a proposed answer or other responsive pleading to the complaint. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.10 [demurrer], 430.30 [objection to complaint by demurrer and/or answer], 431.30 [answer], 435-436 [motion to strike]; see also id., § 585, subds. (a)-(b) [types of responses to the complaint that prevent the entry of default].) A cross-complaint is treated as an independent action from the complaint and does not “answer” or otherwise “respond” to a complaint. (See Ohio Casualty Ins.

Group v. Superior Court (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 444, 448 [“A cross-complaint is generally considered to be a separate action from that initiated by the complaint.”]; Westamerica Bank v. MBG Industries, Inc. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 109, 132 [a complaint and cross-complaint are treated as independent actions for most purposes, except with respect to the requirement of one final judgment].) Defendant has therefore also failed to submit “a copy of the answer, motion, or other pleading proposed to be filed in the action,” as required by section 473.5. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 473.5, subd. (b).)

The Case Management Conference is VACATED, and the Court now sets an OSC re: Dismissal (Entry of Default/Default Judgment) for January 14, 2027, at 9:30 a.m. in Department C12.

Clerk shall give notice.

7. Lauretano vs. UDR Eight80 II LP

26-01537862

1. Demurrer to Complaint 2. Motion to Strike Complaint 3. Case Management Conference

Defendant UDR Eight80 II, LP’s Demurrer

Defendant UDR Eight80 II, LP’s demurrer to Plaintiff Courtney Lauretano’s Complaint is OVERRULED.

“The elements of a cause of action for IIED are as follows: (1) defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct (conduct so extreme as to exceed all bounds of decency in a civilized community) with the intent to cause, or with reckless disregard to the probability of causing, emotional distress; and (2) as a result, plaintiff suffered extreme or severe emotional distress.” (Berry v. Frazier (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1258, 1273, as modified on denial of reh’g (May 15, 2023); Crouch v. Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana, Inc. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 995, 1007.) “[W]hether conduct is ‘outrageous’ is