BYS Inc. v. Smoudi
| Decision Date | 13 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 1 CA–CV 10–0906.,1 CA–CV 10–0906. |
| Citation | 630 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 14,228 Ariz. 573,627 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 16,269 P.3d 1197 |
| Parties | BYS INC., Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Salah SMOUDI and Jane Doe Smoudi, husband and wife, dba Me Too Me Too, Defendants/Appellants. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Hammerman & Hultgren, PC By Stanley M. Hammerman, and Holliday & Holliday, PC By Denise M. Holliday, Phoenix, Co–Counsel Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellee.
The Murray Law Offices, PC By Stanley D. Murray, Scottsdale, Attorneys for Defendants/Appellants.
¶ 1 Defendants/appellants Salah and Jane Doe Smoudi dba Me Too Me Too (the Smoudis) appeal from the trial court's denial of their motion to set aside a default judgment. The Smoudis contend: (1) they filed a timely responsive pleading, precluding the entry of default; (2) because they appeared in the action, they were entitled to notice and a hearing on damages, in the absence of which the default judgment is void; and (3) they demonstrated good cause to vacate the judgment in its entirety. For the following reasons, we find that although default was properly entered, the Smoudis appeared in the action and were entitled to notice and a hearing pursuant to Rule 55(b) 2, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. We therefore affirm the entry of default but vacate the default judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶ 2 BYS, Inc. filed a complaint on May 5, 2009 against the Smoudis for breach of contract. The complaint alleged that the Smoudis entered into a lease agreement in November 2006 and subsequently defaulted on the lease, which did not expire until November 2011. The complaint sought damages for unpaid rent and common area maintenance charges, “subject to the Plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages.” The complaint was served on the Smoudis' teenage son on May 29, 2009.
¶ 3 On August 27, 2009, BYS filed an “Application for Default; Entry of Default.” On September 21, 2009, the Smoudis filed a document entitled “Application for Default Entry of Default, Request for Time Extension” and paid the civil answer fee. The document stated:
I recently learned about the lawsuit brought by BYS [I]nc. against me, through a copy of application for default filed by the attorney of the plaintiff.
The documents were served to my son who was under 15 years of age, on May 29th. My son failed to understand the gravity of the case and tossed them in his box of school paper. My wife had a major surgery on Aug. 31 and I spent several nights beside her and could not file this request for extension. I am still taking care of her and my family.
I have consulted with an attorney, and I am in contact with the plaintiff attorney, who agreed to withdraw a request for default, to reach a settlement out of court if possible. If we do not, I am prepared to defend myself in court and prove that the plaintiff broke the lease first.
I am asking you your honor to give me a chance by giving me an extension and not to pass the default judgment against me.
¶ 4 On October 2, 2009, BYS responded to the Smoudis' document and asserted that service of the summons and complaint was proper. Its counsel also denied agreeing to withdraw the application for default but acknowledged agreeing to a five-day extension to allow the Smoudis to answer the complaint. BYS argued that the Smoudis had failed to answer the complaint or otherwise reach an agreement with BYS. Attached to the response was email correspondence from September 15, 2009, in which BYS's counsel advised the Smoudis that their response was due the previous week and that counsel had filed the default paperwork that day but would try to retrieve it. In an email dated the following day, counsel advised the Smoudis that she was able to retrieve “the final default paperwork” and would need a “written proposal on how [the Smoudis] would like to resolve this matter in the next five days.”
¶ 5 On October 8, BYS filed a Motion for Default Judgment, asserting that the Smoudis were properly served and had filed no responsive pleading, accompanied by a Sum Certain Affidavit. The court subsequently entered a default judgment against the Smoudis in the sum of $182,340, plus attorney fees and costs.
¶ 6 On December 2, 2009, the Smoudis filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment, in which they made three arguments. First, they claimed that service of the summons and complaint had been made on their teenage son, who did not inform them of service for more than sixty days.1 Second, they stated that they arranged with BYS for an extension of time to file their answer and denied receiving a copy of BYS's response to their motion for an extension. Finally, they argued they had appeared in the action via their document filed on September 21, and were thus entitled to notice of and a hearing on BYS's Motion for Default Judgment, pursuant to Rule 55(b) 2. Therefore, they reasoned, because BYS had wrongly avowed that they had not appeared in the action, the default judgment should be set aside on grounds of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect; fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct; the judgment was void; or any other reason justifying relief under Rule 60(c)(1), (3), (4), or (6). The Smoudis asked the court to set aside the judgment and allow them to answer the complaint.
¶ 7 In response, BYS argued the Smoudis were properly served and aware of the filing of the application for entry of default and the filing of the motion for entry of default judgment but did not answer the complaint. BYS stated that upon receiving the Smoudis' motion requesting an extension, it notified them that BYS would be filing a response and reminded them that BYS had agreed only to delay its filing of a motion for default judgment by five days, which ended on September 21. BYS also stated that it mailed its response to the request for an extension and its Motion for Default Judgment to the Smoudis. 2 It noted that the documents had not been returned. Additionally, BYS argued that the default had been entered because the Smoudis failed to appear and the amount at issue was a sum certain; therefore, judgment could be entered on motion without a hearing under Rule 55(b) 1. BYS also contended that any notice required under Rule 55(a)(1) was satisfied when BYS mailed a copy of the request for entry of default to the Smoudis and no other notice was required.
¶ 8 In their reply, the Smoudis argued that they appeared in the action on September 21, 2009, before BYS's Motion for Default Judgment was filed and they were entitled to a hearing on the application for judgment and a three-day notice of the hearing under Rule 55(b) 2.
¶ 9 On July 15, 2010, BYS filed an Application for Writ of Garnishment (Non–Earnings) against Wells Fargo Bank as garnishee to collect on the judgment against the Smoudis. A writ of garnishment was served on or about the same day. On July 22, 2010, the Smoudis filed a Request for Hearing on the writ of garnishment, noting that the court had not ruled on their Motion to Set Aside Default and that they had not been served with notice of the writ of garnishment.
¶ 10 On August 23, 2010, the court held a hearing on the Smoudis' objection to the garnishment, at which time the court noted that it had been unaware that the Smoudis' Request for an Extension to File an Answer and Motion to Set Aside Judgment were pending and proceeded to address those motions as well. The court denied the Request for Extension, reasoning that the default had been entered as of September 10, 2009 3 and the Request for Extension was untimely. The court further found that the Request for Extension was not an appearance or an answer because it was not a responsive pleading and even if it were deemed an answer and if an additional five days had been given after the entry of default, it was still not timely filed. The court also denied the motion to set aside the default judgment because it found that the matter fell under Rule 55(b) 1, which does not require notice or a hearing, and that “to appear” meant to file a responsive pleading, which it found the Smoudis had not done.
¶ 11 On November 9, 2010, the court denied the motion to set aside the default judgment. The Smoudis timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 12–2101.A.1, 2 and 5(c) (2011). 4
¶ 12 A defendant in a civil action must file an answer within twenty days after service of the summons and complaint. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). If a defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend within those twenty days, the plaintiff may file an application for entry of default. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 55(a). The entry of default becomes effective ten days after the filing of the application, unless within that time, the defendant pleads or otherwise defends. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 55(a)(2), (3).
¶ 13 After entry of default has become effective, a plaintiff may file a motion for default judgment.5 Ariz. R. Civ. P. 55(b). If the amount sought by the complaint is for a sum certain or for a sum that can be computed with certainty, the court shall enter judgment on plaintiff's motion if the defendant has been defaulted for failure to appear. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 55(b) 1. “In all other cases,” the plaintiff must apply to the court for judgment, and if the defendant has appeared in the action, the plaintiff must serve the defendant with written notice of the motion for judgment at least three days prior to a hearing on the application. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 55(b) 2. If the damages are not certain, the court may also conduct a hearing as necessary to determine the amount of damages. Id.
¶ 14 A party seeking to set aside a default judgment must show that it sought relief from the judgment promptly, that the failure to timely answer the complaint was excusable under Rule 60(c), and that it had a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
PNC Bank, N.A. v. Stromenger
... ... Flagstar Bank, FSB, 227 Ariz. 91, 2, 253 P.3d 288, 291 (App. 2011), quoting Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., 192 Ariz. 313, 2, 965 P.2d 47, 49 (App. 1998). In September 2007, appellees contracted to receive a student loan from PNC Bank. Those funds were ... v. Smoudi, 228 Ariz. 573, 14, 269 P.3d 1197, 1201 (App. 2012).21 Rule 12(a)(2), Ariz. R. Civ. P., requires the plaintiff to file a reply to a counterclaim ... ...
-
In re Heredia
... ... address arguments challenging the entry of default to the extent they are urged as grounds to set aside the default judgment, see BYS Inc. v. Smoudi, 228 Ariz. 573, 3-6, 269 P.3d 1197, 1198-99 (App. 2012) (addressing challenge to entry ofPage 5default argued as ground for setting aside ... ...
-
Searchtoppers.com, L.L.C. v. Trustcash LLC
... ... See BYS Inc. v. Smoudi, 228 Ariz. 573, 578, 20, 269 P.3d 1197, 1202 (App.2012). In this factually analogous case, we answer no because we conclude that Rule ... ...
-
Ruffino v. Lokosky
... ... See, e.g. , Sullivan & Brugnatelli Advert. Co., Inc. v. Century Capital Corp. , 153 Ariz. 78, 80, 734 P.2d 1034, 1036 (App. 1986) ("An order setting aside ... a default judgment, is appealable as a ... 2010) (citing Rosen v. Bd. of Med. Examrs , 185 Ariz. 139, 143, 912 P.2d 1368, 1372 (1995) ); see also BYS Inc. v. Smoudi , 228 Ariz. 573, 577, 14, 269 P.3d 1197, 1201 (App. 2012) ; however, proper service under the rule is a legal question of personal jurisdiction ... ...