ARTESIA PARTNERS LLC v. SCARLETT ROSE 21 ENTERPRISES LLC

and the occurrence of irreparable harm. (Savage v. Trammell Crow Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1562, 1571.)

Discussion

On August 13, 2026, the Court heard and granted Plaintiff's ex parte application for temporary orders concerning the Pod. The relevant facts are stated in the Court's Minute Order on August 13, 2026. Briefly, this matter involves Defendants' Pod which was left on the Subject Premises and has become the subject of a City of Santa Fe Springs directive against Plaintiff, ordering Plaintiff to remove the Pod because it is a public nuisance. Defendants had not responded to Plaintiffs' communications requesting it to retrieve the Pod or confirm its abandonment.

Plaintiff shows that it will suffer harm if an injunction is not issued. "On or about July 8, 2026, Plaintiff received a Notice of Violation from the City of Santa Fe Springs, Case No. 26-000402. The City identified Plaintiff as the property owner and legally responsible party, found that the POD reduces the number of required parking spaces, identified the unpermitted POD as a prohibited public nuisance, and directed Plaintiff to remove it and restore the required parking." (Dardashti Decl., P. 8.)

Plaintiff had not been able to remove it because Defendants had "not identified the POD's legal owner, produced title or registration records, identified a lienholder or customer, selected a mover, requested a removal date, or otherwise taken responsibility for the POD." (Dardashti Decl., P. 12.) Plaintiff also establishes a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its failure to surrender possession/damage to premises claim. "In order to constitute an abandonment or surrender of the premises, which on acceptance by the landlord will constitute a surrender of the lease by operation of law, there must be such a relinquishment by the tenant as will justify an immediate resumption of possession by the landlord, and, where there is such a relinquishment, there is a sufficient abandonment or surrender." (Pickens v.

Johnson (1951) 107 Cal.App.2d 778, 788.) Plaintiff argues that the complaint alleges surrender and continued obstruction and cites that Defendants' answer alleges surrender, acceptance, and termination. Moreover, there is no doubt that the Pod belongs to Defendants and that it should be deemed abandoned, as Defendants, themselves, confirm this. Following the issuance of the TRO, Defendants submit the following verified disclosure: My name is Max Gerbut. I am President of Haus.me, Inc. There is a POD at 12906 Telegraph Road, Santa Fe Springs, California.

Haus.me, Inc. is the owner of the POD. There is no serial number or other identifying number for the POD. There are no liens on the POD and no third party has any interest in the POD. Haus.me Inc. hereby relinquishes any right to the POD or any ownership in the POD. (Defendants' Verification & Disclosure.) Defendants do not otherwise oppose a preliminary injunction. Based on the foregoing and through Defendants' disclosure, the Pod is deemed abandoned. Plaintiff is authorized to dispose of the Pod.

This Order will take effect upon Plaintiff's payment of an undertaking in the amount of $500. Plaintiff to give notice. Case Number: 26NWCV02119 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Dept: P ARTESIA PARTNERS

LLC v. SCARLETT ROSE 21 ENTERPRISES LLC CASE NO.: 26NWCV02119 HEARING: 09/03/2026 @ 9:30 AM #9 TENTATIVE ORDER I. Defendant Scarlett Rose 21 Enterprises LLC's motion to set aside default and default judgment is GRANTED. Defendant is ORDERED to file the responsive pleading attached to its motion paper within 5 days of this Order. II. The Court sets a Case Management Conference for Thursday, October 15, 2026 at 9:00 AM in Dept. P. Moving party to give notice. Defendant Scarlett Rose 21 Enterprises LLC (Defendant) moves to set aside the default and default judgment entered against it.

Background

On June 22, 2026, Plaintiff Artesia Partners LLC (Plaintiff) filed this commercial unlawful detainer action against defendant regarding the premises located at 11660 South St., #110, Artesia, CA 90701. On July 21, 2026, Plaintiff requested the Court enter Default as to Defendant (Default). Default was entered on the same date. On July 23, 2026, Default Judgment was entered by clerk's judgment as to possession only (Default Judgment). On July 27, 2026, a Writ of Possession was issued. On July 30, 2026, the Court granted Defendant's ex parte application to advance the instant hearing to today's date. The Court stayed enforcement of the Default Judgment pending the outcome of this hearing. (Order, 7/30/26.)

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) provides for discretionary and mandatory relief for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Discretionary relief is available to "relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473, subd. (b).) An application for discretionary relief "shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed...and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken." (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 473, subd. (b).) Mandatory relief is available "whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney's sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect...unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

neglect." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473, subd. (b).)

Discussion

Defendant moves for mandatory relief from the Default and Default Judgment entered against it on the basis that they were caused by defense counsel's excusable neglect. Defendant submits the declaration of defense counsel Gilbert Sigala (Mr. Sigala). Mr. Sigala recounts the following: Mr. Sigala represents Defendant in this action as well as a separate defendant in a separate unlawful detainer action regarding a different unit on the same premises (26NWUD01029). (Sigala Decl., P.P. 3-4.) Mr. Sigala tried to negotiate a global settlement with both actions while also preparing answers around June 30, 2026 to July 7, 2026. (Sigala Decl., P.P. 6-8.)

Mr. Sigala states that he timely prepared an answer but failed to timely file it. (Sigala Decl., P. 10.) Specifically, Mr. Sigala explains: "Through my mistake...the deadline to file the Answer in the Restaurant Matter was incorrectly calendared as thirty (30) days after service of the Summons and Complaint rather than the shortened statutory deadline applicable to unlawful detainer proceedings." (Sigala Decl., P. 11.) Mr. Sigala explains that on July 22, 2026, he appeared with the defendant in the other action for a hearing and, while attempting to file Defendant's answer in this action, learned about the Default. (Sigala Decl., P.P. 13-14.)

Then, Defendant filed the instant motion on July 29, 2026. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant does not explain when it was served with the summons and complaint, when its response was due, when it retained counsel, or when Mr. Sigala assumed responsibility. Plaintiff argues this is relevant to understanding whether Mr. Sigala's conduct caused the Default. Here, the Court finds that Mr. Sigala's declaration adequately addresses Plaintiff's concern because it shows that Mr. Sigala was actively working on a settlement as of June 30, 2026 and had written an answer that he was prepared to file on July 22, 2026, but for the calendaring error.

Plaintiff further argues that the answer Defendant attaches to its pleadings is incomplete because it was verified after the date Mr. Sigala stated that he had prepared the answer and does not properly identify Lily Rodriguez for verification purposes. The Court notes this defect. However, in reply, Defendant filed a revised verification explaining who Lily Rodriguez is and her authority to verify the answer on behalf of Defendant. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant filed a timely application for relief as well as an attorney declaration attesting to excusable neglect as causing the Default and Default Judgment.

Therefore, mandatory relief is warranted. "'[W]hen relief under section 473¿is¿available, there is a strong public policy in favor of granting relief and allowing the requesting party his or her day in court.'" (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981-82, citations omitted.) Accordingly, Defendant's motion to set aside default and default judgment is GRANTED. Defendant is ORDERED to file the responsive pleading attached to its motion paper within 5 days of this Order. The Court sets a Case Management Conference for Thursday, October 15, 2026 at 9:00 AM in Dept.

P.

Moving party to give notice. | Home -->)" -->