Huntington Continental Town House Association Number 3, Inc. vs. CAL Landscaping & Maintenance

204 Garcia vs. Prime Daniel Ginzburg, Manny Starr, and Mike Comms Retail, Rachmann’s (Moving Counsel) motion to be relieved LLC as counsel for Plaintiff Abril Erandi Garcia is GRANTED.

Moving Counsel shall serve the signed order on Plaintiff and all parties that have appeared. Moving Counsel will be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order upon Plaintiff and all other parties. Moving Counsel shall give notice.

207 Huntington The motion of defendants Cal Landscaping & Continental Maintenance, Inc., and Carissa Amesquita for an Town House order setting aside the defaults entered against Association them on February 13, 2026 is GRANTED. Number 3, Inc. Defendants are to file the original answer and serve vs. CAL a copy by 7/20/26. Landscaping & Maintenance Defendants Cal Landscaping & Maintenance, Inc., and Carissa Amesquita (collectively referred to as Defendants) move for an order setting aside the defaults entered against them on February 13, 2026.

They contend that these defaults, which are the second defaults entered against them, should be set aside because their counsel was unaware that the Court had entered the order on stipulation setting aside the defaults entered on November 4, 2025 and directing counsel to file a responsive pleading within 15 days of entry of the order. They contend that several code sections and theories provide for the relief they are requesting.

The Court’s file supports the contentions of defense counsel that she was unaware that the Court had entered the order on stipulation to set aside the first defaults. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b).)

Specifically, the file shows that defense counsel submitted and served the stipulation to set aside the first defaults with the proposed order thereon

on January 23, 2023. (See ROAs 22 and 26.) Although the Court entered the order on January 23, 2026, there is nothing showing that the order was served on either counsel.

The Court’s file shows that, on February 13, 2026, plaintiff filed requests for defaults of the defendants with a declaration by plaintiff’s counsel. (ROAs 29 and 31.) However, the file also shows that defendants tried to file an answer on that same day, i.e., on February 13, 2026, but the answer was rejected by the Clerk’s Office because the default had already been entered. (See ROAs 21, 22, and 23.)