Squar Milner v. LeClerc CA1/1

Filed 11/12/21 Squar Milner v. LeClerc CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

SQUAR MILNER LLP, Plaintiff and Respondent, A161500 v. FRANCK LECLERC et al., (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-573018) Defendants and Appellants.

Defendants appeal from a judgment after the trial court denied their motion to vacate entry of default against them. They contend the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the motion. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Defendants Franck LeClerc, Cafe Claude Restaurant, Inc., and six other subchapter S corporations formed by LeClerc hired plaintiff Squar Milner LLP to provide them with tax preparation, consulting, and accounting services. Defendants failed to pay for the services rendered. On January 22, 2019, plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging causes of action for breach of contract (written and oral), quantum meruit, and common counts of open book account and account stated. Plaintiff served the summons on the corporate entity defendants on February 4, 2019 and on LeClerc as an individual on March 11, 2019. On March 6, counsel for plaintiff sent a letter to LeClerc stating that none of the

defendants had answered the complaint within 30 days as required. The letter requested defendants inform plaintiff’s counsel by March 20 whether they intended to answer, or plaintiff would file a request for entry of default. Defendants did not respond to the letter. On April 2, default was entered with respect to the corporations, and, on May 6, default was entered as to LeClerc as an individual. All parties were served with notice of entry of default. On May 14, counsel for defendants reached plaintiff’s counsel by telephone and offered to settle or she would file a motion to set aside default. On May 30, defendants moved to set aside the default. In his declaration filed in support of the motion, LeClerc stated that when he was served with the “legal papers in this matter,” among the items he received was a document “labeled NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF that had a hearing date of June 26, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. in Dept. 610.” LeClerc stated he is a “non- lawyer” and he believed that was the day he had to appear in court. He put the matter on his calendar and was waiting for the hearing date when he received a request to enter default which he did not understand. LeClerc “immediately sought the services of an attorney to explain” the notice to him. The attorney explained to LeClerc he “was to have filed a response to the lawsuit within 30 days after receiving the papers” and that until then he “had no idea” that he was required to file a response with the court before June 26. LeClerc further stated he would be “severely prejudiced if [he were] not allowed to respond and defend the lawsuit.” On June 12, plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion, and on June 19, defendants filed a reply, apparently accompanied by a second declaration