Ashjian v Taqueria

(Van Nuys Courthouse East: Dept. T) August 24, 2026 DEPARTMENT T LAW AND MOTION RULINGS If ALL parties submit on the tentative, then no appearance is necessary unless some other matter (i.e., Case Management Conference) is on calendar. It is not necessary to call the court to request oral argument. Oral argument is permitted on all tentative rulings.

25VECV06555 Ashjian v Taqueria [TENTATIVE] ORDER: Defendant Taqueria El Tapatio 1, Inc.'s Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default is GRANTED. Defendant Taqueria El Tapatio 1, Inc. is ORDERED to file the attached Proposed Answer within 5 days.

Introduction

Defendant Taqueria El Tapatio 1, Inc. (Defendant) moved to set aside the entry of default entered on April 1, 2026. An opposition was due August 11, 2026, and none was filed. [NOTE: Defendant has a typo in the spelling of a case name. Defendant cited to Crane v. Camp (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 200. (Mtn pg. 5:23.) "Camp" is spelled wrong and the correct spelling is "Kampe".]

Discussion

Defendant moved to set aside the default because of their mistake, surprise, and excusable neglect of relying on their insurer, State Farm, to respond to the Complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 473(b).) Defendant provided that they tendered the summons and complaint to their insurer when the summons and complaint were served. However, for unknown reasons, it was not until receipt of the request for entry of default that State Farm learned of the action. (See declarations of Renato Torres, Andy Barajas, and Terry Ridgeway.)

With the declarations of Defendant, Defendant's insurance broker, and Defendant's insurer, the facts provided are sufficient to show Defendant's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect in failing to file a response. The motion is persuasive. The motion to set aside default is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED, CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE. Case Number: 26VECV02773 Hearing Date: August 24, 2026 Dept: T 26VECV02773 Gomez v Horiguchi [TENTATIVE] ORDER: Plaintiff Deysi Vizaino Gomez's Motion to Set Aside the Dismissal "with Prejudice" is GRANTED.

The instant action is deemed to have been dismissed "without prejudice". The dismissal with the designation "with prejudice" entered on May 28, 2026, is stricken and the same dismissal is designated "without prejudice".

Introduction

Plaintiff Deysi Vizaino Gomez (Plaintiff) moved to set aside the dismissal of the action entered on May 28, 2026. An opposition was due August 11, 2026, and none was filed.

Discussion

Plaintiff provides that the request for dismissal "with prejudice" was filed by Counsel by mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect and requests relief under the mandatory provision of the statute. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 473(b).) Plaintiff's Counsel submitted their declaration showing their mistake in filing a request for dismissal "with prejudice". Counsel provided that the instant action should have been dismissed "without prejudice" so that it does not affect a subsequent duplicate action between the parties on the exact same matter. (See Gomez v. Horiguchi (Super. Ct. of L.A. County, pending, No. 26VECV02944; filed on May 19, 2026 (944 Case).) Counsel realized his mistake when he received the demurrer to the complaint in the 944 Case. Counsel's declaration sufficiently presented facts to show their mistake in dismissing the instant action "with prejudice". Because