Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473)
25CV139673: WONG, et al. vs SOLNORDAL, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473) filed by Thomas Wong (Petitioner); Jennifer Kavouniaris (Petitioner) CRS# 505797173807 in Department 1
Tentative Ruling - 06/15/2026 Michael Markman
The Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment filed by Jennifer Kavouniaris, Thomas Wong on 03/30/2026 is Denied.
BACKGROUND
Petitioners Thomas Wong and Jennifer Kavouniaris filed this verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint against Respondents/Defendants the Alameda County Republican Central Committee (ACRCC), the California Republican Party (CAGOP), Jeanne Solnordal, Stephanie Szto, Jackie Cota, Utkarsh Jain, Drew Mercy, and Jason Clark, challenging their automatic removal from the ACRCC. The ACRCC is a county political party affiliated with the CAGOP and the national Republican Party. The individual respondents serve in various leadership roles at the ACRCC and CAGOP.
Respondents prevailed on a demurrer to all cause of action and prevailed in part on their special motion to strike the petition/complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). (See Order, entered Jan. 27, 2026.) Judgment was entered on February 6, 2026. The parties litigated costs, and a hearing on fees is set for July 23, 2026. In this motion, Petitioners ask the court to vacate its March 24, 2026 order granting in part Petitioners motion to tax costs and set a new hearing on the motion.
DISCUSSION
Petitioners contend that the hearing was procedurally defective because the proceeding was marred by pervasive audio and technological failures that prevented the in-person participant (Mr. Wong) from hearing the remote judicial officer and prevented the remote participants from hearing Mr. Wong. (MPA, p. 7.) Petitioners argue that the court failed to comply with mandatory safeguards for remote proceedings under Code of Civil Procedure, section 367.75, and abused its discretion in denying a continuance to allow Petitioners to pursue a pending subpoena. The court has already granted Respondents motion to quash the subpoena, which leaves only the due process claim based on audio issues for the courts consideration.
Petitioners motion is supported by declaration from Luis Reynoso, who was physically present as a spectator in the courtroom on March 24, 2026, and reports that he could not hear the judicial officer or defense counsel, who were appearing remotely. Respondents counter with a declaration from counsel, stating that Mr. Wong did not raise any objection regarding audibility or audio quality during the hearing and participated substantively in the hearing.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The court published a tentative ruling the day before the hearing, but after the statutory deadline. The tentative ruling was intended to guide the argument during the hearing and instructed the 25CV139673: WONG, et al. vs SOLNORDAL, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473) filed by Thomas Wong (Petitioner); Jennifer Kavouniaris (Petitioner) CRS# 505797173807 in Department 1 parties to appear via Zoom only. No party contested the tentative ruling or contacted the department to request an in-person appearance. As the court recalls, Petitioner Wong appeared and argued without raising any concerns about the quality of the audio. The minute order does not reflect any objection from Petitioners.
In civil cases, due process questions must be raised at the earliest opportunity or they are forfeited. (Tri Ctys. Bank v. Superior Ct. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1339; see also Jackpot Harvesting Co. v. Superior Ct. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 125, 154 [as a general rule, constitutional issues not raised in earlier civil proceedings are waived on appeal]; Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 56 [declining to consider constitutional arguments first raised in appellate reply brief].)
The Court of Appeal has applied the forfeiture rule in the context of a civil defendant who failed to timely raise concerns about courts lack of ability to see her during remote appearance. (D.Z. v. L.B. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 625, 633.) It would be both unfair and inefficient to permit Petitioners to make a challenge to the order based on an issue that, if timely brought to the courts attention during the hearing, could have been corrected or avoided. (Shaw v. Cnty. of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4th 229, 28586 [appellate rights forfeited].)
ORDER
Petitioners motion is DENIED.
HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?
THROUGH eCOURT
Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps:
1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select Search 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed
BY EMAIL
Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK (dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
25CV139673: WONG, et al. vs SOLNORDAL, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473) filed by Thomas Wong (Petitioner); Jennifer Kavouniaris (Petitioner) CRS# 505797173807 in Department 1
Notice via BOTH eCourt AND email is required. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no party contests the tentative ruling.