Discover Bank v. Augusto A. Pravia

Case Number

24CV01639

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 09/03/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion of Defendant Augusto A. Pravia for Order Setting Aside Judgment

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Discover Bank: Stella Park

For Defendant Augusto A. Pravia: Self-Represented

    

RULING

For the reasons set forth below, the motion of Defendant Augusto A. Pravia for order setting aside judgment is denied.

Background

This action commenced on March 20, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by Plaintiff Discover Bank against Augusto A. Pravia for account stated and open book account.

As alleged in the complaint:

On February 1, 2001, Plaintiff provided Defendant credit account and granted use privileges. (Compl., ¶ 3.) Defendant used the credit account to make purchases, take cash advances, or make balance transfers. (Ibid.) Defendant failed to make payments as agreed, and has failed to pay amounts due on the account in the amount of $6,232.00. (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 5.)

On August 1, 2024, Defendant answered the complaint with a general denial and three affirmative defenses.

On October 21, 2024, the Court set a bench trial to take place on April 14, 2025, at 11:30 a.m.

On April 14, 2025, at the trial confirmation conference, the parties indicated that they were in settlement negotiations by had not yet settled. The Court reassigned the matter to Department 3 and set the matter for a Case Management Conference to take place on April 23, 2025.

On April 23, 2025, with Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant present, the Court set trial to take place on May 7, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. Plaintiff’s counsel was directed to give notice. On April 25, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel served notice as ordered.

On May 7, 2025, Defendant failed to appear at trial. Plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court that the parties were working on a settlement and requested a continuance. Following extensive argument by Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court reluctantly granted to continuance. A new trial date was scheduled for July 2, 2025, at 10:30 a.m.

On June 26, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel served Defendant with: (1) Notice of Trial, (2) Trial Brief, and (3) Exhibit List. All documents reflected the July 2, 2025, trial date and time.

On July 2, 2025, Defendant again failed to appear at trial. The trial proceeded as scheduled and the Court found in favor of Plaintiff, and against Defendant, in the total amount of $6,604.10 ($6,232.00 in damages and $372.10 in costs).

On July 8, 2025, Defendant filed the present motion for order setting aside the judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, claiming he inadvertently “misunderstood or misrecorded the hearing date and was under the mistaken belief that the hearing was scheduled for a different day, July 7, 2025.” (Pravia Decl., ¶ 2.)

Analysis

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), provides in relevant part:

“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.”

As noted above, Defendant claims he failed to appear at trial due to inadvertence.

“[A]s for inadvertence or neglect, “ ‘[t]o warrant relief under section 473 a litigant’s neglect must have been such as might have been the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances. The inadvertence contemplated by the statute does not mean mere inadvertence in the abstract. If it is wholly inexcusable it does not justify relief. [Citations.] It is the duty of every party desiring to resist an action or to participate in a judicial proceeding to take timely and adequate steps to retain counsel or to act in his own person to avoid an undesirable judgment. Unless in arranging for his defense he shows that he has exercised such reasonable diligence as a man of ordinary prudence usually bestows upon important business his motion for relief under section 473 will be denied. [Citation.] Courts neither act as guardians for incompetent parties nor for those who are grossly careless of their own affairs. . . . The only occasion for the application of section 473 is where a party is unexpectedly placed in a situation to his injury without fault or negligence of his own and against which ordinary prudence could not have guarded.’ ” [Citation.]” (Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1206.)

The Court does not find Defendant’s claimed inadvertence excusable. Defendant failed to appear at trial on May 7, 2025. The Court reluctantly continued the trial date and noted that no more continuances would be granted. Thereafter, Defendant was served with a notice of trial, a trial brief, and an exhibit list. All those documents contained the correct date and time for the continued trial date. Despite being given notice of the date and time of the trial, in multiple different ways, Defendant again failed to appear. Considering all the circumstances present here, a reasonably prudent person would not have mis-calendared the trial date and failed to appear.

Defendant’s motion will be denied.