GARCIA, et al. vs INTEGRITY AUTO SALES INC, et al.

25CV016631: GARCIA, et al. vs INTEGRITY AUTO SALES INC, et al. 07/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5) in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that effective April 13, 2026, this department has moved to the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye courthouse located at 500 G Street in Sacramento, CA 95814. All hearings noticed for Department 25 will be heard in Department 8D of the new courthouse. Parties who wish to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, and (2) advise opposing counsel of the request.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, the tentative ruling shall become the final order of the Court. The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Court assumes that all parties will appear remotely via Zoom unless the Court orders inperson attendance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.

Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

25CV016631: GARCIA, et al. vs INTEGRITY AUTO SALES INC, et al. 07/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5) in Department 8D

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Defendant’s counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Defendant’s counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Defendant’s counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom as stated in the introductory notice to today’s tentative rulings), in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Defendant Integrity Auto Sales, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Set Aside Default is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This action arises out of Plaintiffs Moraima Garcia and Mya Sandoval’s (“Plaintiffs”) purchase of a used vehicle from Defendant on or about March 7, 2025. (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed August 14, 2025, ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs allege that the 2018 Mercedes- Benz C-Class they purchased from Defendant was defective and Defendant misrepresented the condition of the vehicle prior to purchase. (FAC ¶¶ 8, 10-25.) Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act - Injunctive Relief; (2) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act - Restitution/Damages; (3) Violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17500; (4) Violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200; (5) intentional misrepresentation; (6) violation of Penal Code section 496(a); (7) rescission; (8) to enforce liability under dealer's bond; and (9) to enforce liability under the holder rule.

On September 30, 2025, following Defendant’s failure to file a responsive pleading, the Court entered default against Defendant.

Defendant now moves to set aside default. Plaintiffs oppose.

Legal Standard

The trial court has discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) on a showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect to grant relief from a judgment, dismissal or other order based on its evaluation of the nature of the mistake or error alleged and the justification proffered for the conduct that occurred. “The general underlying purpose of section 473(b) is to promote the determination of actions

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016631: GARCIA, et al. vs INTEGRITY AUTO SALES INC, et al. 07/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5) in Department 8D

on their merits.” (Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 838; accord, Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 255-256 [“‘It is well settled that appellate courts have always been and are favorably disposed toward such action upon the part of the trial courts as will permit, rather than prevent, the adjudication of legal controversies upon their merits.' [Citation.] Thus, 'the provisions of section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure are to be liberally construed and sound policy favors the determination of actions on their merits.'”].) Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2016) 244 Cal. App. 4th 918, 928.)

The relief afforded by section 473(b) is to be liberally granted when its prerequisites are satisfied.

Discussion

Defendant argues that it recently retained counsel and that the default “was entered as a result of mistake, inadvertence and excusable neglect.” (Mtn., p. 3:15.) The sole basis for the instant motion appears to be Defendant’s failure to retain counsel until shortly before the filing of the instant motion. Defendant presents no evidence showing diligence in seeking counsel.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s motion is procedurally defective, as the notice does not state the statutory basis for the motion; and that Defendant has not shown mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect warranting the setting aside of default. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant has presented no facts in support of its motion and that Defendant has made no showing of diligence in seeking relief.

The party seeking relief bears the burden of proof in establishing a right to relief. (Hopkins & Carley v. Gens (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1410.) “The burden is a double one: the moving party must show a satisfactory excuse for his default, and he must show diligence in making the motion after discovery of the default. (Ibid. (internal quotations and citation omitted).)

“Whether a party has acted diligently is a factual question for the trial court” (Arega v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 308, 316.) As the moving party, Defendant has the burden of showing mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Kendall v Allied Investigations, Inc. (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 619, 624.) “It is the duty of every party desiring to resist an action or to participate in a judicial proceeding to take timely and adequate steps to retain counsel or to act in his own person to avoid an undesirable judgment. Unless in arranging for his defense he shows that he has exercised such reasonable diligence as a man of ordinary prudence usually bestows upon important business his motion for relief under section 473 will be denied.” (Hearn

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016631: GARCIA, et al. vs INTEGRITY AUTO SALES INC, et al. 07/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5) in Department 8D

v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1206.)

Here, the moving papers assert Defendant’s failure to respond was the result of “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” However, the only fact presented to the Court in support of Defendant’s moving papers is that Defendant only recently retained counsel, despite being served on September 4, 2025. The moving papers do not identify what the asserted “mistake” was, though in reply, Defendant argues the mistake was “not hiring counsel until after the Default was entered.” (Reply at p. 5.) However, Defendant does not identify what mistake of fact or law prevented it from timely responding to the complaint. (See Hopkins, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at p. 1411 [“without at least some such information it is impossible to determine what the supposed mistake was and whether it furnished a legally sufficient excuse for the failure”].)

Likewise, the moving papers do not identify what constitutes conduct constitutes “excusable neglect.” In reply, for the first time[1], Defendant asserts it “mislaid” the complaint. Not only is this argument raised for the first time in reply, such assertion is made only generally in argument, without any facts regarding how, when, or why it was “mislaid” and without any evidence from Defendant to support such an assertion. (Cf. Bernards v. Grey (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 679, 682-685 [upholding relief from default where the defendant set forth in an affidavit that he placed the summons and complaint in his briefcase and, through inadvertence, did not notify counsel of them because was not aware of their nature at the time].)

Further, Defendant has made no showing of diligence in seeking counsel and has provided no explanation as to why it did not retain counsel until February of this year.

Accordingly, based on the current submissions, Defendant has not met its burden to demonstrate a factual basis to set aside default based on mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

During the pendency of this motion and after Defendant filed its moving papers, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding an additional party. In reply, Defendant argue that the Second Amended Complaint provides a “substantive change” that provides Defendant an opportunity to respond. Plaintiffs did not have an opportunity to respond to this argument. The Court continues this matter allow for supplemental briefing on this issue.

Disposition

This matter is continued to August 17, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in this Department to allow Parties the opportunity to provided supplemental briefing on the limited issue of whether Defendant should be provided an opportunity to respond to the Second Amended Complaint, as set forth above. Plaintiff shall file and serve a supplemental opposition, not to exceed five pages, no later than July 27, 2026, and Defendant may file and serve

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016631: GARCIA, et al. vs INTEGRITY AUTO SALES INC, et al. 07/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5) in Department 8D

a supplemental reply, not to exceed five pages, no later than August 3, 2026.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

[1] The general rule in California is that evidence or agument presented for the first time

on reply is not permitted. (Carbajal v. CWPSC, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 227, 241.)

On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5) scheduled for 07/20/2026 is continued to 08/17/2026 at 01:30 PM in Department 8D at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.