641417126 Motion to Set Aside Default
1 2 3 4 5 6
JUSTIN H. SANDERS (SBN 211488) [email protected] REGINALD ROBERTS, JR. (SBN 216249) [email protected] SANDERS ROBERTS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: 213-943-1314 Facsimile: 213-234-4581 Attorneys for Defendants SCHOLASTICA TANG, TANG FAMILY INVESTMENT, LLC
7 8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES-CENTRAL DISTRICT
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
TAMARA WILKINS, an individual,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) JOSEPH FRANCIS TREJO, an individual; ) ASTON ENZO INVESTMENTS, INC., A ) ) California Corporation; SCHOLASTICA ) TANG, an individual; WING YUEN ) TIMOTHY LIU, an individual; TANG FAMILY INVESTMENT, LLC; and DOES 1 ) ) through 100, Inclusive, ) ) Defendant(s). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No.: BC467987 [Assigned for All Purposes to Judge Alan S. Rosenfield, Dept. 31] DEFENDANT TANG FAMILY INVESTMENT, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [Filed Concurrently With the Declaration Of Scholastica Tang In Support Thereof; Declaration Of Reginald Roberts, Jr. In Support Thereof; [PROPOSED] Order] DATE: TIME: DEPT:
August 10, 2012 1:30 p.m. 31
Complaint Filed:
August 25, 2011
24 25 26
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 10, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as
27
the matter may be heard in Department “31” of the above-entitled Court, Defendant TANG
28
FAMILY INVESTMENT, LLC (“TFI”) will move this Court, as pursuant to Code of Civil - 1DEFENDANT TANG FAMILY INVESTMENT, LLC’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECL. OF REGINALD ROBERTS, JR.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1 2
I.
INTRODUCTION Defendant TANG FAMILY INVESTMENT, LLC (“TFI”) requests that the Court
3 4
exercise its power to set aside the entry of default against TFI because TFI’s failure to file a
5
responsive pleading to the Complaint was due to its mistake, inadvertence, surprise and
6
excusable neglect. TFI’s co-defendant Joseph Trejo (“Defendant Trejo”) misled it by
7
representing to it that he had obtained counsel for the defendants and that the legal matter was
8
being taken care of. When TFI discovered that Defendant Trejo’s representations were false, it
9
promptly obtained counsel and now moves to set aside the entry of default against it.
10
Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) vests this Court with the power to relieve TFI from an
11
application for entry of default judgment entered against TFI on February 21, 2012. Relief under
12
this provision of 473(b) is mandatory if the conditions are fulfilled. Matera v. McLeod, 145
13
Cal.App.4th 44, 63 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2006). Furthermore, the policy of law favors controversies
14
being heard and disposed of on the merits. Berman v. Klassman, 17 Cal.App.3d 900, 909
15
(1971). Because TFI’s failure to timely respond to the Complaint was due to its mistake based on
16 17
Defendant Trejo’s false representations and to excusable neglect, and because Plaintiff will
18
suffer no prejudice if the Court grants this Motion, this Court should set aside the default
19
judgment and allow TFI to defend itself.
20
II.
21
STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff Tamara Wilkins (“Plaintiff”) filed this Complaint in the Superior Court of the
22
County of Los Angeles on or about August 25, 2011. See Complaint. Plaintiff served TFI with
23
the Complaint in or about December 2011. Almost immediately after learnin of the lawsuit,
24
Defendant Scholastica Tang, on behalf of TFI, contacted Defendant Trejo, who organized the
25
real estate “investments,” and with whom TFI invested funds for the real-estate transactions
26
referenced in the Complaint, and asked for guidance. Defendant Trejo assured TFI that he would
27
obtain legal counsel to assist with the legal matter and assured TFI that it did not need to take
28
any actions related to the lawsuit. (Declaration of Ms. Tang (“Tang Decl.”) ¶ 3.) - 3DEFENDANT TANG FAMILY INVESTMENT, LLC’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECL. OF REGINALD ROBERTS, JR.
1
Both Ms. Tang and TFI believed Defendant Trejo and relied on his promises to obtain
2
counsel to represent the Defendants. (Tang Decl. ¶ 4.) After the passage of several weeks, Ms.
3
Tang inquired again of Mr. Trejo regarding the status of the legal proceedings and what, if
4
anything, it needed to do. Defendant Trejo assured TFI again that he was taking care of the
5
matter. (Tang Decl. ¶ 4.) Between late February and early March 2012, Defendant Trejo
6
renewed his assurances that the legal matter was a misunderstanding and would be resolved.
7
However, in May 2012, TFI lost confidence in Defendant Trejo’s representations and searched
8
for counsel to assist it in this matter. (Tang Decl. ¶ 5.)
9
TFI retained SANDERS ROBERTS LLP to represent it in this action. (Tang Decl. ¶ 5.)
10
On or about June 4, 2012, counsel reviewed the Court’s on-line case summary and learned that
11
on February 21, 2012, a Request for Default was entered against TFI. See Declaration of
12
Reginald Roberts, Jr. (“Roberts Decl.”) ¶ 3.) Upon discovery of the entry of default, Reginald
13
Roberts, Jr., of SANDERS ROBERTS LLP, immediately contacted Plaintiff’s counsel, Kevin B.
14
Sawkins of SAWKINS & ALBERT, to seek relief from entry of default. Mr. Sawkins was not
15
available to receive the call and Mr. Roberts left a voice message requesting relief. As of the
16
date of the filing of this Motion, no one from the office of Sawkins & Albers has returned the
17
call or otherwise agreed to the requested relief from default. (Roberts Decl. ¶ 3.)
18
TFI has valid defenses to the claims brought against it by Plaintiff and may also cross-
19
complain against Defendant Trejo. TFI now files this Motion seeking relief by the Court from
20
entry of Default against it and requests leave to file a responsive pleading within two weeks of
21
the hearing and granting of this request.
22
This case is still in the pleading stage. There is no prejudice to Plaintiff in setting aside
23
the entry of default.
24
III.
DEFENDANT TFI REQUESTS THE COURT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETIONARY
25
POWER TO GRANT ITS MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT
26
“To set aside a judgment based upon extrinsic mistake one must satisfy three elements.
27
First, the defaulted party must demonstrate that it has a meritorious case. Second, the party
28
seeking to set aside the default must articulate a satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense - 4DEFENDANT TANG FAMILY INVESTMENT, LLC’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECL. OF REGINALD ROBERTS, JR.
1
to the original action. Last, the moving party must demonstrate diligence in seeking to set aside
2
the default once ... discovered.” Rappleyea v. Campbell, (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 982, quoting
3
Stiles v. Wallis (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1143, 1147–1148. “There are four grounds which a
4
court, utilizing its equity capacity may rely upon to provide relief from a default. Those areas are
5
(1) Void judgment, (2) Extrinsic fraud, (3) Constructive service, and (4) Extrinsic mistake.”
6
Stiles v. Wallis (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1143, 1147. An extrinsic mistake exists and provides a
7
basis to set aside entry of default where one party relies on another to defend it. Id.
8
A.
Defenses Against Plaintiff’s Claims and Independent Claims Against Other
9
Defendants
10 11
The Court Should Set Aside Default Against TFI Because It has Valid
The default entered against TFI should be set aside because it can defend against
12
Plaintiff’s claims based on the merits of the case. In addition, TFI is a victim and possesses valid
13
claims against Defendant Trejo and others.
14
Although named as one of several defendants in the Action, TFI engaged in no
15
misconduct and was the victim of deception and possible fraud by Defendant Trejo. Indeed,
16
Plaintiff only makes one passing reference to TFI in paragraph 8 of the Complaint. Plaintiff fails
17
to allege a single fact accusing TFI of any misconduct whatsoever. The Court must afford TFI
18
an opportunity to defend against Plaintiff’s claims on the merits, or lack thereof for all claims
19
that purportedly relate to TFI. By granting the requested relief, the Court will allow the case
20
against TFI to be decided on the merits and prevent and injustice against it and a windfall for
21
Plaintiff at the expense of TFI.
22 23
B.
TFI Relied on Misrepresentations of Defendant Trejo that He Was Providing It With a Legal Defense In This Matter
24
Plaintiff filed this Complaint in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles on or
25
about August 25, 2011. See Case Summary. In approximately December 2011, Ms. Tang, on
26
behalf of TFI, contacted Defendant Trejo regarding the lawsuit. Defendant Trejo assured TFI
27
that he would obtain legal counsel to assist with the legal matter and assured TFI that it did not
28
need to take any actions related to the lawsuit. (Tang Decl. ¶ 3.) - 5DEFENDANT TANG FAMILY INVESTMENT, LLC’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECL. OF REGINALD ROBERTS, JR.
1
Ms. Tang and TFI believed Defendant Trejo and relied on his promises to obtain counsel
2
to represent the Defendants. (Tang Decl. ¶ 3.) By the time TFI realized that Defendant Trejo
3
misled it and did not retain counsel or otherwise take any steps to protect its interest in the
4
action, the statutory time to file a responsive pleading had passed. (Tang Decl. ¶ 6.) This
5
extrinsic fraud and mistake provides a valid basis for relief from entry of default against TFI.
6
Accordingly, it urges this Court respectfully to grant the requested relief from entry of default
7
and to resolve this matter on its merits.
8
C.
In Seeking To Set Aside Default
9 10
Since Learning of the Extrinsic Fraud and Mistake, TFI Has Been Diligent
If an application for relief is filed within six months after the entry of judgment, is in
11
proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney’s affidavit of “mistake, surprise or neglect,” the
12
court “shall vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and
13
which will result in entry of a default judgment…” CCP 473(b). Relief under this provision of
14
473(b) is mandatory if the conditions are fulfilled. Matera v. McLeod, 145 Cal.App.4th 44, 63
15
(Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2006).
16
In this case, Between late February and early March 2012, Defendant Trejo renewed his
17
assurances that the legal matter was a misunderstanding and would be resolved. However, in or
18
around May 2012, TFI lost confidence in Defendant Trejo’s representations and searched for
19
counsel to assist it in this matter. (Tang Decl. ¶ 5.)
20
TFI retained SANDERS ROBERTS LLP to represent it in this action. (Tang Decl. ¶ 5.)
21
On or about June 4, 2012, counsel reviewed the Court’s on-line case summary and learned that
22
on February 21, 2012, a Request for Default was entered against TFI. See Declaration of
23
Reginald Roberts, Jr. (“Roberts Decl.”) ¶ 2.) Upon discovery of the entry of default, Reginald
24
Roberts, Jr., of SANDERS ROBERTS LLP, immediately contacted Plaintiff’s counsel, Kevin B.
25
Sawkins of SAWKINS & ALBERT, to seek relief from entry of default. Mr. Sawkins was not
26
available to receive the call and Mr. Roberts left a voice message requesting relief. (Roberts
27
Decl. ¶ 3.)
28
Counsel for TFI has filed this motion to set aside the default approximately one hundred - 6DEFENDANT TANG FAMILY INVESTMENT, LLC’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECL. OF REGINALD ROBERTS, JR.
JUSTIN H. SANDERS (SBN 211488) [email protected] REGINALD ROBERTS, JR. (SBN 216249) [email protected] SANDERS ROBERTS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: 213-943-1314 Facsimile: 213-234-4581 Attorneys for Defendants SCHOLASTICA TANG, TANG FAMILY INVESTMENT, LLC
7 8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES-CENTRAL DISTRICT
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
TAMARA WILKINS, an individual,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) JOSEPH FRANCIS TREJO, an individual; ) ASTON ENZO INVESTMENTS, INC., A ) ) California Corporation; SCHOLASTICA ) TANG, an individual; WING YUEN ) TIMOTHY LIU, an individual; TANG FAMILY INVESTMENT, LLC; and DOES 1 ) ) through 100, Inclusive, ) ) Defendant(s). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No.: BC467987 [Assigned for All Purposes to Judge Alan S. Rosenfield, Dept. 31] DEFENDANT TANG FAMILY INVESTMENT, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [Filed Concurrently With the Declaration Of Scholastica Tang In Support Thereof; Declaration Of Reginald Roberts, Jr. In Support Thereof; [PROPOSED] Order] DATE: TIME: DEPT:
August 10, 2012 1:30 p.m. 31
Complaint Filed:
August 25, 2011
24 25 26
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 10, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as
27
the matter may be heard in Department “31” of the above-entitled Court, Defendant TANG
28
FAMILY INVESTMENT, LLC (“TFI”) will move this Court, as pursuant to Code of Civil - 1DEFENDANT TANG FAMILY INVESTMENT, LLC’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECL. OF REGINALD ROBERTS, JR.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1 2
I.
INTRODUCTION Defendant TANG FAMILY INVESTMENT, LLC (“TFI”) requests that the Court
3 4
exercise its power to set aside the entry of default against TFI because TFI’s failure to file a
5
responsive pleading to the Complaint was due to its mistake, inadvertence, surprise and
6
excusable neglect. TFI’s co-defendant Joseph Trejo (“Defendant Trejo”) misled it by
7
representing to it that he had obtained counsel for the defendants and that the legal matter was
8
being taken care of. When TFI discovered that Defendant Trejo’s representations were false, it
9
promptly obtained counsel and now moves to set aside the entry of default against it.
10
Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) vests this Court with the power to relieve TFI from an
11
application for entry of default judgment entered against TFI on February 21, 2012. Relief under
12
this provision of 473(b) is mandatory if the conditions are fulfilled. Matera v. McLeod, 145
13
Cal.App.4th 44, 63 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2006). Furthermore, the policy of law favors controversies
14
being heard and disposed of on the merits. Berman v. Klassman, 17 Cal.App.3d 900, 909
15
(1971). Because TFI’s failure to timely respond to the Complaint was due to its mistake based on
16 17
Defendant Trejo’s false representations and to excusable neglect, and because Plaintiff will
18
suffer no prejudice if the Court grants this Motion, this Court should set aside the default
19
judgment and allow TFI to defend itself.
20
II.
21
STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff Tamara Wilkins (“Plaintiff”) filed this Complaint in the Superior Court of the
22
County of Los Angeles on or about August 25, 2011. See Complaint. Plaintiff served TFI with
23
the Complaint in or about December 2011. Almost immediately after learnin of the lawsuit,
24
Defendant Scholastica Tang, on behalf of TFI, contacted Defendant Trejo, who organized the
25
real estate “investments,” and with whom TFI invested funds for the real-estate transactions
26
referenced in the Complaint, and asked for guidance. Defendant Trejo assured TFI that he would
27
obtain legal counsel to assist with the legal matter and assured TFI that it did not need to take
28
any actions related to the lawsuit. (Declaration of Ms. Tang (“Tang Decl.”) ¶ 3.) - 3DEFENDANT TANG FAMILY INVESTMENT, LLC’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECL. OF REGINALD ROBERTS, JR.
1
Both Ms. Tang and TFI believed Defendant Trejo and relied on his promises to obtain
2
counsel to represent the Defendants. (Tang Decl. ¶ 4.) After the passage of several weeks, Ms.
3
Tang inquired again of Mr. Trejo regarding the status of the legal proceedings and what, if
4
anything, it needed to do. Defendant Trejo assured TFI again that he was taking care of the
5
matter. (Tang Decl. ¶ 4.) Between late February and early March 2012, Defendant Trejo
6
renewed his assurances that the legal matter was a misunderstanding and would be resolved.
7
However, in May 2012, TFI lost confidence in Defendant Trejo’s representations and searched
8
for counsel to assist it in this matter. (Tang Decl. ¶ 5.)
9
TFI retained SANDERS ROBERTS LLP to represent it in this action. (Tang Decl. ¶ 5.)
10
On or about June 4, 2012, counsel reviewed the Court’s on-line case summary and learned that
11
on February 21, 2012, a Request for Default was entered against TFI. See Declaration of
12
Reginald Roberts, Jr. (“Roberts Decl.”) ¶ 3.) Upon discovery of the entry of default, Reginald
13
Roberts, Jr., of SANDERS ROBERTS LLP, immediately contacted Plaintiff’s counsel, Kevin B.
14
Sawkins of SAWKINS & ALBERT, to seek relief from entry of default. Mr. Sawkins was not
15
available to receive the call and Mr. Roberts left a voice message requesting relief. As of the
16
date of the filing of this Motion, no one from the office of Sawkins & Albers has returned the
17
call or otherwise agreed to the requested relief from default. (Roberts Decl. ¶ 3.)
18
TFI has valid defenses to the claims brought against it by Plaintiff and may also cross-
19
complain against Defendant Trejo. TFI now files this Motion seeking relief by the Court from
20
entry of Default against it and requests leave to file a responsive pleading within two weeks of
21
the hearing and granting of this request.
22
This case is still in the pleading stage. There is no prejudice to Plaintiff in setting aside
23
the entry of default.
24
III.
DEFENDANT TFI REQUESTS THE COURT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETIONARY
25
POWER TO GRANT ITS MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT
26
“To set aside a judgment based upon extrinsic mistake one must satisfy three elements.
27
First, the defaulted party must demonstrate that it has a meritorious case. Second, the party
28
seeking to set aside the default must articulate a satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense - 4DEFENDANT TANG FAMILY INVESTMENT, LLC’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECL. OF REGINALD ROBERTS, JR.
1
to the original action. Last, the moving party must demonstrate diligence in seeking to set aside
2
the default once ... discovered.” Rappleyea v. Campbell, (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 982, quoting
3
Stiles v. Wallis (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1143, 1147–1148. “There are four grounds which a
4
court, utilizing its equity capacity may rely upon to provide relief from a default. Those areas are
5
(1) Void judgment, (2) Extrinsic fraud, (3) Constructive service, and (4) Extrinsic mistake.”
6
Stiles v. Wallis (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1143, 1147. An extrinsic mistake exists and provides a
7
basis to set aside entry of default where one party relies on another to defend it. Id.
8
A.
Defenses Against Plaintiff’s Claims and Independent Claims Against Other
9
Defendants
10 11
The Court Should Set Aside Default Against TFI Because It has Valid
The default entered against TFI should be set aside because it can defend against
12
Plaintiff’s claims based on the merits of the case. In addition, TFI is a victim and possesses valid
13
claims against Defendant Trejo and others.
14
Although named as one of several defendants in the Action, TFI engaged in no
15
misconduct and was the victim of deception and possible fraud by Defendant Trejo. Indeed,
16
Plaintiff only makes one passing reference to TFI in paragraph 8 of the Complaint. Plaintiff fails
17
to allege a single fact accusing TFI of any misconduct whatsoever. The Court must afford TFI
18
an opportunity to defend against Plaintiff’s claims on the merits, or lack thereof for all claims
19
that purportedly relate to TFI. By granting the requested relief, the Court will allow the case
20
against TFI to be decided on the merits and prevent and injustice against it and a windfall for
21
Plaintiff at the expense of TFI.
22 23
B.
TFI Relied on Misrepresentations of Defendant Trejo that He Was Providing It With a Legal Defense In This Matter
24
Plaintiff filed this Complaint in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles on or
25
about August 25, 2011. See Case Summary. In approximately December 2011, Ms. Tang, on
26
behalf of TFI, contacted Defendant Trejo regarding the lawsuit. Defendant Trejo assured TFI
27
that he would obtain legal counsel to assist with the legal matter and assured TFI that it did not
28
need to take any actions related to the lawsuit. (Tang Decl. ¶ 3.) - 5DEFENDANT TANG FAMILY INVESTMENT, LLC’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECL. OF REGINALD ROBERTS, JR.
1
Ms. Tang and TFI believed Defendant Trejo and relied on his promises to obtain counsel
2
to represent the Defendants. (Tang Decl. ¶ 3.) By the time TFI realized that Defendant Trejo
3
misled it and did not retain counsel or otherwise take any steps to protect its interest in the
4
action, the statutory time to file a responsive pleading had passed. (Tang Decl. ¶ 6.) This
5
extrinsic fraud and mistake provides a valid basis for relief from entry of default against TFI.
6
Accordingly, it urges this Court respectfully to grant the requested relief from entry of default
7
and to resolve this matter on its merits.
8
C.
In Seeking To Set Aside Default
9 10
Since Learning of the Extrinsic Fraud and Mistake, TFI Has Been Diligent
If an application for relief is filed within six months after the entry of judgment, is in
11
proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney’s affidavit of “mistake, surprise or neglect,” the
12
court “shall vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and
13
which will result in entry of a default judgment…” CCP 473(b). Relief under this provision of
14
473(b) is mandatory if the conditions are fulfilled. Matera v. McLeod, 145 Cal.App.4th 44, 63
15
(Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2006).
16
In this case, Between late February and early March 2012, Defendant Trejo renewed his
17
assurances that the legal matter was a misunderstanding and would be resolved. However, in or
18
around May 2012, TFI lost confidence in Defendant Trejo’s representations and searched for
19
counsel to assist it in this matter. (Tang Decl. ¶ 5.)
20
TFI retained SANDERS ROBERTS LLP to represent it in this action. (Tang Decl. ¶ 5.)
21
On or about June 4, 2012, counsel reviewed the Court’s on-line case summary and learned that
22
on February 21, 2012, a Request for Default was entered against TFI. See Declaration of
23
Reginald Roberts, Jr. (“Roberts Decl.”) ¶ 2.) Upon discovery of the entry of default, Reginald
24
Roberts, Jr., of SANDERS ROBERTS LLP, immediately contacted Plaintiff’s counsel, Kevin B.
25
Sawkins of SAWKINS & ALBERT, to seek relief from entry of default. Mr. Sawkins was not
26
available to receive the call and Mr. Roberts left a voice message requesting relief. (Roberts
27
Decl. ¶ 3.)
28
Counsel for TFI has filed this motion to set aside the default approximately one hundred - 6DEFENDANT TANG FAMILY INVESTMENT, LLC’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECL. OF REGINALD ROBERTS, JR.
