MOTION DEFAULT
June 12, 2026 Dept. 9 Tentative Rulings
2. 24CV2106 KENNETH BAZEMORE, JR. VS. BYC ENTERPRISES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ET AL MOTION DEFAULT
Plaintiff files this motion for relief from default on April 7, 2026. The motion maintains Plaintiff was represented by counsel who failed to file an answer despite communicating with Plaintiff regarding the need to respond. The opposition filed June 1, 2026 claims the motion is time barred because the default being entered on September 12, 2025 and there is no attorney affidavit.
[B]ecause the law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits, any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default (Waite v. Southern Pacific Co. (1923) 192 Cal. 467, 470-471 [221 P. 204]; Carli v. Superior Court (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1095, 1099 [199 Cal.Rptr. 583] [in the context of deemed admissions § 473 should be applied liberally “so cases can be tried on the merits”]; Flores v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d at p. 483.) . . . A motion seeking such relief lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court's decision will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. (Weitz v. Yankosky (1966) 63 Cal.2d 849, 854 [48 Cal.Rptr. 620, 409 P.2d 700]; Martin v. Cook (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 799, 807 [137 Cal.Rptr. 434].)
Elston v. City of Turlock, 38 Cal. 3d 227, 233, 695 P.2d 713 (1985).
The court notes that the entry of default occurred on September 12, 2025. However, the court can find no Judgement entered for the prevailing party nor anything establishing notice of entry of the default. Had either occurred the court would agree the request is time barred; however, it does not appear judgement has been entered nor notice of judgment to start the time to run.
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?”
Additionally, the court is not persuaded an attorney declaration is necessary. The declaration avers there was a breakdown in the relationship which contributed to the failure to file an answer. Such a breakdown would also make obtaining a declaration either impossible or practicable.
As such, the court grants the motion to set aside default.
TENTATIVE RULING #2: THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT IS GRANTED. COUNSEL IS DIRECTED TO SERVE A COPY OF THE SIGNED ORDER (FORM MC-053) ON THE CLIENT AND ALL PARTIES THAT HAVE APPEARED IN THE CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.1362(e).
June 12, 2026 Dept. 9 Tentative Rulings
NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6551 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999). NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY TELEPHONE OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M.
ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; EL DORADO COUNTY LOCAL RULE 8.05.07. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SAID NOTICE MUST BE FILED PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING. LONG CAUSE HEARINGS MUST BE REQUESTED BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED AND THE PARTIES ARE TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH THREE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AT 2:30 P.M. LONG CAUSE ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS WILL BE SET FOR HEARING ON ONE OF THE THREE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AT 2:30 P.M.
THE COURT WILL ADVISE THE PARTIES OF THE LONG CAUSE HEARING DATE AND TIME BY 5:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. PARTIES MAY PERSONALLY APPEAR AT THE HEARING.
4