Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc., as assignee for the State Compensation Insurance Fund, sued Barry Halajian (doing business as Industrial Electrical) in Fresno County Superior Court on February 4, 2022. The complaint alleged Halajian owed $86,858.26 under four workers' compensation insurance policies after he refused to comply with payroll audits and refused to pay the resulting estimated balances. Halajian was served at a mailbox center he used for correspondence but did not respond, and the trial court entered his default on May 25, 2022. Respondent filed for default judgment on July 12, 2022.
Halajian moved on August 15, 2022 to set aside the default under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), citing extensive out-of-town travel and a heavy work schedule. The trial court denied the motion on November 10, 2022, rejecting the 'press of business' excuse but doing so without prejudice and inviting further explanation. Halajian filed a second motion on January 5, 2023, again relying on his work obligations, which the court denied with prejudice on May 25, 2023. After the court entered a default judgment on January 13, 2025, Halajian moved on March 7, 2025 to vacate it on equitable grounds, citing extrinsic mistake, excusable neglect, and fraud; the court denied that motion on May 6, 2025, and denied his reconsideration motion, filed on May 14, 2025, on July 15, 2025.
Halajian appealed on August 14, 2025. The appellate court rejected two motions to dismiss filed by the respondent, finding the notice of appeal sufficient and preferring a decision on the merits. The court also denied Halajian's October 9, 2026 request for mandatory judicial notice, treating it as an impermissible supplemental brief raising matters not relevant to the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief under section 473 or under its equitable powers. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, the court explained that excusable neglect is measured by whether a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances might have made the same error, and that California courts have long held that a 'press of business' does not qualify. Halajian offered only his out-of-town work obligations as his excuse, and the trial court had expressly warned him after his first motion that this would not suffice.
The court distinguished the authorities Halajian cited — Olivera v. Grace, Rappleyea v. Campbell, Gamet v. Blanchard, Zamora, and Minick — noting those cases involved serious incapacity, clerk miscommunications, misleading court orders, or attorney errors promptly brought to the court's attention. By contrast, Halajian was properly served under section 415.20, never contested service, waited months to act, and relied on his own negligence rather than any counsel's mistake. The court also upheld the denial of equitable relief, finding no satisfactory excuse for failing to present a defense and no extrinsic fraud or mistake, since relief is unavailable where the complaining party's own negligence permitted the default.
The court rejected Halajian's remaining contentions: self-represented litigants are held to the same procedural rules as attorneys; his challenges to the respondent's standing and the insurer's corporate structure were summarily rejected as meritless; and due process arguments raised for the first time in his reply brief would not be entertained. The judgment was affirmed, with respondent awarded costs on appeal not subject to Halajian's fee waiver.
Key Takeaways
- A 'press of business' — even extensive out-of-town work and long hours — does not constitute excusable neglect justifying relief from a default under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).
- Trial courts may give a self-represented defendant a second chance to show excusable neglect, but repeating the same insufficient excuse will result in denial with prejudice.
- Equitable relief from a default judgment requires a meritorious defense, a satisfactory excuse for not appearing, and diligence, and it is unavailable when the party's own negligence caused the default.
- Self-represented litigants are held to the same procedural standards as attorneys, and arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief will not be considered on appeal.
- Notices of appeal are liberally construed, so an appeal from a default judgment can also reach the underlying entry of default and orders denying relief from it.
Why It Matters
This unpublished opinion reinforces well-established California law that being busy with work is not a legal excuse for failing to respond to a lawsuit, even for self-represented defendants facing substantial claims. It illustrates how trial courts can balance the policy favoring decisions on the merits — by granting a defendant a renewed opportunity to justify relief — while still enforcing procedural rules when the defendant offers no legally adequate explanation.
The decision also serves as a practical reminder that service at a private mailbox center used for business correspondence can be valid, and that waiting months to act after learning of a suit undermines later claims of excusable neglect or extrinsic mistake.