Capital One Bank USA NA vs Pete Madrigal

Case Number

21CV03867

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 07/14/2025 - 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: July 14, 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 motion of Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. to set aside and vacate dismissal is granted. The court will sign the proposed order submitted by plaintiff. Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of this ruling on defendant Pete Madrigal as well as Madrigal’s attorney of record Daniel S. March.

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. The motion was originally scheduled to be heard on June 16, 2025, but Madrigal’s attorney of record had not been properly served so the court continued the motion to today’s date so that proper service could be effectuated. Proper service was made on June 19, 2025.

The motion is unopposed.

Analysis:

           

“The court may, upon any terms as may be just, 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. Application for this relief . . . shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken. . . . Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the court shall, 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, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, 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., § 473, subd. (b).)

“While the motion lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, “ ‘the trial court’s discretion is not unlimited and must be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law and in a manner to subserve and not to impede or defeat the ends of substantial justice.’ ” [Citation.] The law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits. Therefore, any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief. When the moving party promptly seeks relief and there is no prejudice to the opposing party, very slight evidence is required to justify relief.” (Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1343.)

The present motion was made well within the time frame in which it must be brought. In support of the motion, Capitol One submits the declaration of counsel in which she declares:

“According to my review of our file and the register of actions, [the] trial confirmation conference scheduled for 09/16/2024 was continued to 03/03/2025. Plaintiff was to serve notice of trial.” (D’Anna Decl., ¶ 4.)

“According to my review of our file and the register of actions, Plaintiff filed Notice of Trial with hearing date 03/03/2025 in department 5 at 1:30 PM on 10/14/2024 . . ..” (D’Anna Decl., ¶ 5; bold omitted.)

“Plaintiff was unaware of the inadvertent clerical mistake made in the notice of trial. Plaintiff was unaware its Trial Notice was updated to reflect 11:30am as Plaintiff’s counsel never received the court’s Minute Order from 9/16/24 or the modified Trial Notice.” (D’Anna Decl., ¶ 6; bold omitted.)

Despite the implication from Capitol One’s counsel that the court had made a clerical error, it did not. In fact, declaring counsel was present at the Trial Confirmation Conference when the court set the date and time of the hearing for March 3, 2025, at 11:30 a.m.

The court will read and accept the declaration of Capitol One’s counsel as declaring that she, or her law office, caused the clerical error or mistake that resulted in Capitol One’s failure to appear at the time of trial.

Because Capitol One’s counsel has provided a sworn affidavit of fault, within the allowable timeframe, relief is mandatory. The motion will be granted.

Capitol One will be ordered to serve notice of this ruling on Madrigal as well as Madrigal’s attorney of record, Daniel S. March, and file proof of service with the court.