Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment
management statement at least 15 calendar days prior to the continued hearing as required by the rules, including California Rules of Court rule 3.725 and Local Rule 369.
Plaintiff to give notice.
7 Pacific Castle Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment Portola, LLC vs. Ketabchi The court takes Defendant MONA KETABCHI’s motion to set aside default and default judgment OFF CALENDAR.
Procedural background: On 8/21/25, the IDC court struck Defendant’s Answer (filed on 4/29/24). Thereafter, judgment by default was entered on 11/14/25. Thereafter, on 12/12/25, Defendant filed a notice of appeal of the default judgment. (ROA 104.) Months thereafter, on 2/19/26, Defendant filed the instant motion to set aside default and default judgment.
The court is without jurisdiction to proceed at this time. The filing of a valid notice of appeal of a judgment generally divests the trial court of jurisdiction over anything affecting the judgment. Until the remittitur issues, the lower court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the order or judgment on appeal. This rule prevents the trial court from rendering an appeal futile by conducting proceedings that may affect or alter the judgment on appeal. (See Townsel v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1084, 1089.
See also, Code Civ. Proc., § 916 [“the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order”; “The purpose of the automatic stay ... is to protect the appellate court’s jurisdiction by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided”].)
Accordingly, the motion is off calendar. If appropriate, after a remittitur issues, the appeal is dismissed, or this
court otherwise retains jurisdiction again, Defendant may request that the motion be calendared again for hearing.
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?”
Plaintiff to give notice.
8 Timanus vs. Motion for Judgment Not Withstanding the Verdict Melrose Recovery Motion for New Trial LLC. Motion to Vacate Judgment
1. Motion for Judgment Not Withstanding the Verdict; 2. Motion for New Trial; and 3. Motion to Vacate Judgment.
The court DENIES Defendant/Cross-Complainant WALTER YBARRA and Defendant RESTORATIONS HEALTH CARE LLC’s (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) motion to set aside the 5/18/26 Judgment and to enter a revised judgment notwithstanding the verdicts rendered by the jury on 4/28/26.
The court also DENIES Moving Defendants’ motion for a new trial.
The court also DENIES Moving Defendants’ motion to vacate the judgment.
For the separately filed JNOV motion (ROA 473), motion for new trial (ROA 476), and motion to vacate the judgment (ROA 469), Moving Defendants argue that the evidence received at trial is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Specifically, moving parties argue that
“(1) [Plaintiff/Cross Defendant TRINA TIMANUS] did not establish that she suffered any harm; (2) Plaintiff did not present any credible evidence of damages; (3) the jury’s damages award was inconsistent with Plaintiffs breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims; (4) Plaintiff did not identify any breach of fiduciary duty by Ybarra upon which an award of punitive damages could be based; and (5) the jury’s punitive damages award was improper, as Plaintiff did not introduce evidence of
19