Motion to Set Aside Default/Judgment
Browse all Motion to Set Aside Default/Judgment rulings statewide →
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230
DATE: 07/01/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 22CV406880 Sriadhibhatla Chainulu Motion to Set Aside Default/Judgment vs Ajit Sanzgiri et al Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 1 LINE 2 24CV428712 Belen Ibanez Motion to Compel vs Javier Ibanez et al Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 3 LINE 3 24CV444998 City of San Jose, a Petition for Adjudication and Approval of Option Agreement by Receiver charter city vs Kim Ho et al. Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 3 LINE 4 25CV472064 Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Motion to Set Aside Default/Judgment N.a. vs Sukhjeev Singh Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 4 LINES 5 - 25CV476569 Greg Gianotti Demurrer & Motion to Strike vs 6 Salacup Nardito et al.
Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 5 LINE 7 25CV479084 Sandeep Pal vs Denodo Petition Compel Arbitration Technologies Inc. Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 7 LINE 8 25CV47984 Pedram Bigdeli et al. Hearing: Petition Compel Arbitration vs Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 8
Calendar Line 1 Case Name: Sriadhibhatla Chainulu v. Christina Hudnall Case No.: 22CV406880
MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT/JUDGMENT
Defendant moves to set aside the default and default judgment entered in this action under Code of Civil Procedure sections 473(b), 473.5, and 473(d), asserting mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, and lack of actual notice. The motion is denied.
CCP § 473.5 requires a showing that service did not result in actual notice in time to defend and that the lack of notice was not caused by avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect. The record does not support Defendant’s claim of lack of actual notice. Plaintiff presents evidence of repeated attempts at personal service over an extended period, followed by service by publication. In addition, Plaintiff shows Defendant engaged directly with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the lawsuit, including communications acknowledging receipt of the complaint and indicating acceptance of service by mail. Plaintiff further shows Defendant appeared at multiple case management conferences and acknowledged receipt of litigation-related mailings sent to the same address used for service of default-related documents.
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?”
These facts are inconsistent with any assertion that Defendant lacked actual notice of the action or was unaware of the proceedings in time to defend. Rather, the record supports a finding that Defendant had actual knowledge of the litigation but failed to meaningfully respond or appear to defend the case.
Relief under CCP § 473(b) is also not warranted. The discretionary relief provision applies only upon a showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The conduct reflected in the record demonstrates not excusable neglect, but informed and sustained nonparticipation despite awareness of the action. A party’s strategic or intentional decision not to respond to litigation, or selective engagement while avoiding formal participation, does not constitute excusable neglect under section 473(b). Defendant’s pro per status does not alter this analysis.
CCP § 473(d) is inapplicable because Defendant has not demonstrated that the judgment is void on its face or that the court lacked jurisdiction. To the contrary, the record reflects substantial efforts at service, including publication, as well as Defendant’s own communications and appearances indicating awareness of the case.
Although there is a general policy favoring resolution of cases on the merits, that policy does not override the statutory requirements for relief from default. On this record, Defendant has not met the burden required under any asserted statutory ground.
Accordingly, the motion to set aside the default and default judgment is DENIED.
Plaintiff to prepare the final proposed order, accompanied by the necessary Form EFS-020 within 7 days of the hearing.