Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default & Judgment
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings July 10, 2026
The following are the tentative ruling for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 21***
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-22-004091 - DISCOVER BANK vs SEPULVEDA, ANASTASIA - Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default & Judgment - DENIED without prejudice, and unopposed.
On June 12, 2026, Defendant filed the instant motion seeking relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5. "The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or the party's legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against the party through the party's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473.) "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, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken." (Id.)
The motion is procedurally defective. There is no proof of service on the Plaintiff. Even if the motion was served on Plaintiff, the motion is likely untimely. Section 473(b) requires that motions for relief "shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment . . . was taken." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473.) The default and default judgment were entered on December 6, 2022. Defendant knew about the case at least as of June 2025 when Plaintiff attempted to garnish her wages but did not file the instant motion until a year later. Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.
CV-26-000923 - WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs MARTINEZ, AARON - Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted and of Nonappearance - GRANTED, and unopposed.
On May 28, 2026, Plaintiff submitted a motion to deem requests for admissions admitted and for nonappearance. Plaintiff's notice of motion states that Plaintiff submits the motion on the moving papers pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1304(c) and will not appear at the hearing in open court. The motion is unopposed.
"If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted[.]" (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280.) "The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280(c).)
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's declaration states that Plaintiff propounded Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions, Set One, on Defendant and received no response. Plaintiff requests that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified be deemed admitted. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, Plaintiff's unopposed motion is GRANTED. The Court intends to sign the proposed order Plaintiff submitted in connection with its motion.
CV-26-001914 - STANISLAUS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS vs COOPER, BRANDON W - Plaintiff's Motion for Order of Prejudgment Possession - HEARING REQUIRED.
The Court notes that Defendant's Opposition was untimely filed but exercises its broad discretion to consider same. (Jack v. Ring LLC, (2023); 91 Cal. App. 5th 1186; Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc., (2010)186 Cal. App. 4th 755).