Capital One Bank USA NA vs Pete Madrigal

Case Number

21CV03867

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 06/16/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Vacate Dismissal Entered 3/3/2025

Tentative Ruling

Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. v. Pete Madrigal           

Case No. 21CV03867

           

Hearing Date: June 16, 2025                          

HEARING:              Plaintiff Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.’s Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Dismissal and to Restore Case to Active Status

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.: Laura M. D’Anna, Patenaude & Felix, A.P.C.

                                    For Defendant Pete Madrigal: Daniel S. March, Litigation Practice Group PC                             

TENTATIVE RULING:

The hearing on plaintiff Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.’s motion to set aside and vacate dismissal and to restore case to active status is continued to July 14, 2025, to allow for proper service. Plaintiff shall serve both defendant and defense counsel, with the motion as well as this ruling, no later than June 20, 2025, and file proof of service with the court.

Background:

This action commenced on September 29, 2021, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. (“Capital One”) against defendant Pete Madrigal (‘Madrigal”) for Common Counts related to an alleged debt of $10,713.86 owed by Madrigal to Capital One.

On November 30, 2021, Madrigal answered the complaint with a general denial and 14 affirmative defenses.

Following a previous continuance of the trial confirmation conference, on September 16, 2024, the court continued trial again to take place on March 3, 2025, at 11:30 a.m. Counsel for Capital One and Madrigal were both present.

On October 14, 2024, Capital One filed and served a “Trial Notice.” However, the notice contained a typographical error that listed the time of the trial as 1:30 p.m. The court corrected the error on the notice by striking out “1:30 p.m.” and inserting the correct time of 11:30 a.m.

On March 3, 2025, at 11:30 a.m., the court called the case for trial as scheduled. Madrigal was present but Capital One’s counsel was not. Due to the non-appearance at trial, the matter was dismissed without prejudice.

Capital One now moves to set aside the dismissal and to restore the case to active status.

Analysis:

            Service

On September 26, 2023, Madrigal’s counsel of record, Daniel S. March, filed a declaration regarding his inability to further represent Madrigal in this action. By way of the declaration, March represented that he anticipates that he will be substituted out of the case or that he would be filing a motion to withdraw. Neither of those things took place and March is still technically Madrigal’s attorney of record in this case.

The attorney-client relationship continues after dismissal or judgment for purposes of accepting service of, or responding to, a CCP § 473 postjudgment challenge. (See Maxwell v. Cooltech, Inc. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4^th 629.)

“Whenever a document is required to be served on a party, the service must be made on the party's attorney if the party is represented.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1.21(a).)

According to the proof of service filed by Capital One, Madrigal was served via mail on March 11, 2025. His attorney of record was not served.

As service was incomplete, the hearing on this matter will be continued to allow for proper service.