Perez v. Aranda CA2/6

Filed 12/22/25 Perez v. Aranda CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

ALMA PEREZ, 2d Crim. No. B342303 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2021- Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant 00550859-CU-BC-VTA) and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

JOSE ARANDA et al.,

Defendants, Cross- Complainants and Appellants.

A court’s failure to exercise its discretion whether to grant a party relief under Code of Civil Procedure1 section 473, subdivision (b) from a judgment entered after a trial in their

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the

Code of Civil Procedure.

absence is error. We will reverse and remand directing the court to exercise its discretion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case arises from a dispute over the sale of a business. A five-day jury trial was set by stipulation of the parties to begin in April 2024, but only Alma Perez, respondent, appeared. Appellants Jose and Liz Aranda et al., were represented by counsel who had not informed them of the trial date. Trial was continued three times after that date and each time the clerk gave notice to appellants’ attorney, the last time by telephone. Neither appellants nor their attorney ever appeared. On the final trial date, the court determined appellants waived jury trial by failing to post jury fees and failing to appear. Respondent waived her right to a jury, the court received evidence, and the matter was submitted for decision. The court found in favor of respondent on the breach of contract claim and entered judgment in respondent’s favor and against appellants in the amount of $33,275. Appellants moved to vacate and set aside the judgment pursuant to section 473 subdivision (b), claiming judgment was taken against them as the result of their and their counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and neglect. The trial court denied relief, finding section 473 subdivision (b) relief unavailable because a judgment entered following an uncontested trial is not a default, default judgment, or dismissal. DISCUSSION Section 473 subdivision (b) has two provisions. One is discretionary, the other mandatory. The discretionary provision authorizes relief from judgment, dismissal, order, or other