R, L V. BURGER KING CORPORATION ET AL

and the Motion is denied.

However, even if the Court were to consider the Motion given the lack of proper notice, the filing requirements for a motion to set aside under Code of Civil Procedure §473(b) are mandatory and jurisdictional. See Code of Civil Procedure §473(b); Manson, Iver & York v Black (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 36, 42; Sporn v Home Depot, Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1294; See also, Pulte Homes Corp. v Williams Mechanical, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 267, 273 (trial court could not set aside default when motion for relief from default and default judgment was filed less than 6 months after entry of default judgment but more than 6 months after entry of default; it also could not set aside default judgment because doing so would be "an idle act," since defendant would still be in default and could not oppose entry of new default judgment).

Here, the deadline to file and serve a motion to set aside the judgment was November 27, 2025. However, the instant motion was not filed and served until February 23, 2026. Thus, the motion is untimely, the Court lacks jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure §473(b), and the motion is denied on that basis as well.

In regard to Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure §1008, that request is also untimely. Code of Civil Procedure §1008(a) states that “...any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order...” make application to the Court for reconsideration.

Here, the judgments of dismissal in favor of Defendants NewRez, Shellpoint and Brynwood Park were entered on May 27, 2025, with notice of entry mailed to all parties on June 17, 2025, and Defendant was bound by these judgments pursuant to its Declaration of Non-monetary Status. Any motion for reconsideration of these judgments were to be filed no later than June 27, 2025. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration was filed more than eight months after notice of entry of the judgments is untimely, and the Motion is denied on that basis as well.

Finally, as to the other authorities cited by Plaintiff in support of the Motion, the Court finds that Code of Civil Procedure §473(d) [clerical mistakes], Code of Civil Procedure §473(a) [amendment of pleadings], Code of Civil Procedure §187 [Court’s authority to use any means necessary to carry into effect its jurisdiction], and Plaintiff’s general due process and constitutional rights, do not warrant granting the requested relief. The Motion is denied in its entirety.

4. 24CV04515 R, L V. BURGER KING CORPORATION ET AL EVENT: Plaintiff L.R., a Minor, by and Through her Guardian ad Litem Mary Hawkin’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Directed to Non-Party Chico Police Department

The Motion is granted. The Court finds that Plaintiff has established good cause for the disclosure of the subject information, the Chico Police Department is directed to comply with the subpoena and produce all requested records without redaction within 14 days of the hearing. The Court will sign the form of order submitted by counsel.

2|Page