Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment
2. M-CV-0088489 Synchrony Bank v. Walton, Colleen
Motion to Enforce Settlement under CCP 664.6
Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted.
Plaintiff moves the court to enforce the settlement agreement against defendant. Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6, subdivision (a) provides “[i]f parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6 (a).) Here, plaintiff submits a signed settlement agreement executed between the parties. (See Pl.
Decl. Exh. 1.) Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, defendant was to make payments to the plaintiff. Defendant made payments totaling $660.00 and stopped making payments required by the stipulation. (Decl. Pl. Counsel ¶¶ 5-6.) Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, in the event of a default, judgment is to be entered in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant for the principal amount of suit, less a credit for all payments received under the terms of the stipulation. (Decl. Pl. Counsel Exh. 1 ¶ 5.)
The parties signed the agreement, thereby satisfying CCP §664.6’s requirement that the settlement be in writing and signed by the parties. The defendant has not submitted an opposition.
Therefore, based on the record, plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement under CCP 664.6 is granted. Plaintiff shall submit a proposed form of judgment.
3. M-CV-0095785 Wani, Prashant v. McFarland, Heather
Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment
Defendant Heather McFarland moves to set aside the default and the judgment for possession entered on February 11, 2026. (Def. Mot. pg. 3.)
Defendant claims in her motion that she did not refuse to comply with the 3-day notice to pay or quit, but that the plaintiff refused to accept rent. Defendant provides no explanation for her failure to respond to the complaint within the time required by law. Although defendant refers to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5, she makes no showing that service of summons did not result in actual notice.
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?”
Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) provides:
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. 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...
Even if defendant demonstrated mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, which she has not, her motion is not accompanied by a proposed answer or other pleading to be filed.
Finally, possession of the subject property was restored to plaintiff on or about March 3, 2026. Defendant provides no authority for the contention that a judgment for possession may be set aside under these circumstances.
Based on the foregoing, defendant’s motion is denied.
4. M-CV-0096159 CRP/VDH Fiddyment Ranch v. Richardson, Latoya Denise
Application to Stay Execution of Judgment
In this unlawful detainer matter, defendant Latoya Denise Richardson seeks a stay of execution of judgment through July 7, 2026. The court’s June 23, 2026 and June 24, 2026 orders scheduling this hearing directed defendant to serve plaintiff copies of the application for stay and the court’s orders and to file proof of service with the court. These orders further provided, “Failure to timely serve and timely file a proof of service with the court is a sufficient basis for the court to deny further relief.” There is no evidence in the court’s file that defendant served plaintiff the application or the court’s orders. The court declines to extend the stay of execution of judgment and the current stay will expire, as previously ordered, on June 30, 2026 at 11:59 p.m.
5. M-CV-0097039 US Housing Partners v. Hennen, Kevin R
Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment
In this unlawful detainer matter, defendant Kevin Hennen seeks a stay of execution of judgment through December 12, 2026. The court’s June 9, 2026 and June 23, 2026 orders scheduling this hearing directed defendant to serve plaintiff copies of the application for stay and the court’s orders and to file proof of service with the court. These orders further provided, “Failure to timely serve and timely file a proof of service with the court is a sufficient basis for the court to deny further relief.” There is no evidence in the court’s file that defendant served plaintiff the application or the court’s orders. Plaintiff filed an opposition specifying defendant never served these documents. The court declines to extend the stay of execution of judgment. The current stay will expire, per the court’s June 23, 2026 order, on June 30, 2026 at 11:59 p.m.
6. S-CV-0024903 All Points Capital v. Fill, Daniel
The motion to vacate judgment is dropped from calendar as no moving papers were filed with the court.
3