MARK SCAFINE, ET AL. VS. BLAKE ESQUEDA, ET AL.

The Court asked Defendants about their Answer, noted that Defendants had not filed a Cross-Complaint, and reviewed hearsay, at which point Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed that he would make hearsay objections to unauthenticated evidence. (Ibid.)

“The Court inform[ed] parties that if there are no agreement for admissibility of exhibits the Court will proceed per the evidence code,” and “inform[ed] Defendants that as they are self-represented that the Court will treat them the same as if they were an attorney” and “expects no surprises from parties.” (Ibid.)

The records of the Court Trial further show that the Court has devoted a great deal of effort to ensuring that Defendants understood what they needed to do to submit evidence for trial via the Pretrial Order and the Pretrial Conference, but Defendants did not take the steps required.

June 23, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 48 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

(Minute Order, Court Trial, April 15, 2026, (the “Minutes from Trial”).)

At trial, inter alia, Defendants tried to add a police report as evidence, “The Court inform[ed] parties that exhibits needed to be exchanged prior to trial as stated in the Court’s Pretrial Order which the parties previously confirmed that they received,” and Plaintiff’s counsel objected. (Minutes from Trial, pp.1-2.)

The Court noted that Defendants’ papers needed to be filed in the proper format, and reviewed Defendants’ Witness List. Defendants informed the Court “that their witnesses are not present. The Court notes that she had informed Defendants at the Pretrial Conference regarding subpoenas for witnesses.” (Id., p.2)

On both of these points: The Court asks Defendants how they plan to have the report from San Mateo Police Department authenticated without witnesses. Defendants inform the Court that they have a copy of the report that is certified and provide it to the Court. The Court notes that the copy of the report given to her is a copy of the report with highlights and no certification. Plaintiffs’ counsel objects to the report as hearsay. The Court informs Defendants that the report cannot be submitted as evidence as it is not certified and that Plaintiffs’ counsel objects.

The Court asks Defendants if they talked to the officer who wrote the report. Defendants inform the Court they have not. The Court informs Defendants that today is the date of the Court Trial and that they had extra time to prepare .... The Court asks Defendants if they have prepared a subpoena for the Court to sign. Defendants inform the Court that they did not. The Court informs Defendants that none of the evidence that they have provided the Court can come in at trial as there is no authentication.

At the Pretrial Conference the Court informed the parties regarding authentication of exhibits, rules of evidence, and Plaintiffs’ counsel had said that he would object if there was no authentication as to Defendants’ evidence. The Court asks for an offer of proof by Defendants on their evidence. Argument presented by Defendants. The Court will not allow in any evidence that is not authenticated. (Ibid.)

Defendants also had surprised Plaintiffs’ counsel by naming him as a witness, and the Court explained the procedure for calling opposing counsel as a witness, noting that Defendants had not identified him at the PTC. (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs’ counsel requested a break to discuss settlement, and Defendants did not object.

As to settlement, the Minutes from Trial details the care with which the Court ensured that Defendants understood and agreed to the Stipulated Judgment before signing it.

The Court even reviewed the collateral matter of Case No. 19-UDL-00087, which never had been assigned to a judge and which the Court had deemed unrelated after Defendants had sought to relate it (and another case that the Court also deemed unrelated) in its Order filed on March 19, 2026.

The Minutes from Trial explicitly record that the Court further went over Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request, which is reflected in the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment signed by this Court and filed on April 15, 2026 (the “Stipulated Judgment”), to clear Defendants’ record, and to enter

June 23, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 49 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

an Order nunc pro tunc as of the date that the Request for Dismissal was entered in that matter so that the case was unsealed. (Minutes from Trial, p.3.)

As to the Stipulated Judgment, further:

• “The Court asks if the Defendants agree to the Stipulated Judgment. Defendants confirm they agree.” (Id., p.4.)

• “The Court reviews the Stipulated Judgment,” raising various points and informing the parties that they “will need to initial the changes made to the attachment if they so agree.” (Ibid.)

Accordingly, the Stipulated Judgment bears amendments and initials. (Stipulated Judgment, Att. 1, at pp.2-3.)

• “Plaintiffs’ counsel explained the changes and issues to Defendants and all parties have agreed. [¶] The Court signs the Stipulated Judgment.”

On May 22, 2026, this Court denied Defendants’ Proposed Order Staying Execution of Writ of Possession Pending Evidentiary Hearing on Motion to Vacate Pursuant to CCP § 473(d) (Order Denying, signed and filed on May 22, 2026), and a similar Proposed Order on May 26, 2026, noting that “Commissioner Elliott denied this relief on 5/22/26. Judge Fineman cannot change that order.” (Order Denied, May 26, 2026.)

The Court again denied another similar Proposed Order brought ex parte on May 29, 2026, with handwritten reasoning provided by the Commissioner including that relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d) must be sought by noticed motion. ([Proposed] Order Staying Execution of Writ of Possession and Setting Aside Stipulation, signed and filed on May 29, 2026.)

A Writ of Possession issued on June 4, 2026.

By the Motion, Defendants ask the Court to set aside and vacate the Stipulated Judgment, and any subsequent possessory Orders arising therefrom.

The Motion Is Denied.

In contrast to the history detailed supra, Defendants now declare that: On April 15, 2026, opposing counsel induced our signatures on a hallway stipulation under extreme economic duress, promising our public records would be cleared. When asked what the pending nunc pro tune changes were for, counsel explicitly represented that it was an administrative matter involving an “unfinished divorce.” This statement was a complete fabrication designed to keep us in ignorance while Plaintiff secretly modified and sealed a 2019 clerk default case without ever serving us with copies of the underlying moving papers. (Defendants’ Joint Decl., ¶ 5.)

Yet it is clear from the Minutes from Trial that the Court walked through the Stipulated Judgment with the parties, that Plaintiff’s counsel also explained the changes and issues to Defendants before the Court, and that all parties agreed to the Stipulated Judgment, initialing changes thereto. (Minutes from Trial, p.2.)

The Court would not have signed the Stipulated Judgment without ensuring that all parties actually agreed.

In light of the Court’s detailed records, Defendants’ assertion that the Stipulated Judgment “was procured via active extrinsic fraud, economic duress, and a willful breach of candor toward the tribunal” is unpersuasive. (Motion, 2:14-15.)

June 23, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 50 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiffs also assert that the Stipulated Judgment and the underlying action “are void ab initio due to a total absence of standing, lack of subject-matter privity, material real property variance,” so that they bring the Motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d). (Motion, 2:11-13.)

However, the statute provides that: The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d) (emphasis added).)

Further, the Supreme Court of California specifies that a Court has both inherent power “to vacate and correct its judgments, which because of clerical error are improvidently or inadvertently made, as well as the power under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure to correct clerical errors” (Bastajian v. Brown (1941) 19 Cal.2d 209, 214 (Bastajian)), underscoring that, “Independently of statute a trial court has power to correct mistakes and to annul orders and judgments inadvertently or improvidently made” (ibid. (citations omitted)).

The Bastajian Court emphasizes that: While a court has power to set aside judgments and orders inadvertently made which are not actually the result of the exercise of judgment, it has no power, having once made its decision after regular submission, to set aside or amend judicial error except under appropriate statutory procedure. (Ibid. (citations omitted).)

It is very clear from the record detailed above that the Court did not sign the Stipulated Judgment due to a clerical error.

Further, the Court noted and signed the Stipulated Judgment in the course and as a result of its extensive efforts to ensure Defendants’ full awareness of its contents.

Accordingly, Defendants failed to identify a judicial error here.

Defendants appear to be raising legal arguments that do not fall within the scope of the statute.

Though Defendants do not explicitly move under subdivision (b) of the statute, the Court considered whether the Motion might sound in that subdivision of section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides, in relevant part, that: The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)

However, the Court’s care to ensure that the parties were not stipulating through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, nor excusable neglect, which is reflected extensively in the Court’s records of the first trial on April 3, 2026, the PTC, and the trial on April 15, 2026, makes it highly unlikely that Defendants could make a sufficient showing under this subdivision.

The statute also requires that, “Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted” (Ibid.)

This requirement has not been fulfilled.

June 23, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 51 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

Procedural Notes

The Motion was to have been served and filed by May 29, 2026. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

However, it was filed and service is declared to have been effected on June 3, 2026.

Thus, Plaintiff was not afforded sufficient time to oppose.

If Plaintiff wants the motion to be continued, he shall properly contest the tentative ruling and appear at the hearing.

The Court did not consider Defendants’ Omnibus Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Joint Declaration in Support of Pending Motions to Vacate Stipulation and Judgment; Comprehensive Exhibit Index (Exhibits H-P), which Defendants filed on June 12, 2026, three days after the Opposition was due.

From the title, it appears to be another version of the Motion.

There is simply no way that Plaintiff had an opportunity to oppose this filing, which opportunity already was insufficient as to the Motion itself.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court.

Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the California Rules of Court.