Ly v. Chai
Filed 3/21/06 Ly v. Chai CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| CARRIE LY, a Minor, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MI SOOK CHAI, Defendant and Appellant. | G035291 (Super. Ct. No. 03CC11910) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregory H. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed.
Edwards, Wynn & Associates and William R. Edwards for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Law Offices of Gerald Philip Peters and Gerald P. Peters; Snyder Dorenfeld and David K. Dorenfeld for Defendant and Appellant.
* * *
Defendant Mi Sook Chai appeals from an order denying her motion to set aside a default judgment. Defendant contends she failed to appear due to extrinsic mistake, because she relied on her insurance broker's assurances that her insurer would defend her. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion. It found defendant's continued reliance on her broker was unreasonable, because plaintiff repeatedly notified her that the case was progressing towards default. Thus, we affirm.
FACTS
Plaintiff allegedly burned her arm at defendant's restaurant in March 2002. Plaintiff's attorney sent a letter to defendant's insurer regarding the injury in August 2002. Over the next several months, the insurer investigated the claim and corresponded with plaintiff's attorney. The insurer ultimately informed plaintiff's attorney that it was suspending the investigation until plaintiff's attorney provided various documentation.
Nearly a year later, plaintiff sued defendant for negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff served the summons and complaint on defendant by substitute service on October 15, 2003. Defendant contacted her insurance broker, David Cho. The insurance broker told her that her insurer would handle the matter. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff served defendant with a notice of case management conference. Defendant again contacted her insurance broker, who reiterated that the insurer was handling the case. Plaintiff eventually filed a request for entry of default in February 2004, which she served on defendant. She later served defendant with a request for court judgment in April 2004, which she filed with the court the next month. The record suggests defendant took no action at all in response to these documents. The court entered judgment against defendant on the basis of plaintiff's declarations in June 2004. Six months and one day after the court entered judgment against defendant, plaintiff's attorney informed defendant's insurer about the default judgment.
Defendant moved to set aside the default and judgment less than three weeks later.[1] Defendant contended that she relied on her broker's assurances that the insurer would handle the matter for her, and that her reasonable reliance constituted an extrinsic mistake.
At the hearing on defendant's motion, the court questioned the reasonableness of defendant's reliance on her broker. It observed, â€
