Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc., vs. L S R Builders, Inc.

dismiss an action if an unrepresented corporation does not obtain counsel within reasonable time.”].) The order relieving Bryan Theis/Theis Law Group, PC as counsel of record for Defendant/Cross-Complainant Magic Brush Car Wash, LP is effective upon counsel filing proofs of service of a copy of the signed order, on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) Moving Counsel to give notice.

105 National Funding, Inc. vs. Klette Electric PLLC

25-01522615 Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record x 2 Thomas D. Sands (“Moving Attorney”) moves to be relieved as counsel of record for defendants Klette Electric PLLC and Mary Klette. The motions are unopposed and Moving Attorney has stated a basis for permissive withdrawal under the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16. All other requirements of the applicable California Rules of Court are satisfied. Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED. The orders relieving counsel will be effective upon counsel filing proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the clients and on all parties that have appeared in the case. (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(e).) Moving Attorney to give notice.

106 Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc., vs. L S R Builders, Inc.

25-01513310 Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Judgment Defendant L S R BUILDERS, INC. (“Defendant” or “LSR”) moves this Court for an order setting aside and vacating the Default entered against Defendant and the Default Judgment entered on March 16, 2026.

CCP § 473(b) provides that, on a party’s motion, the court may relieve the party or counsel from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against that party through his or her “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” The Complaint was filed 9/22/2025. The POS (ROA 10) establishes that Defendant was personally served with the Complaint on 12/14/2025. Default occurred on 1/29/2026 (ROA 14). Default Judgment was entered on 3/16/2026. (ROA 26.) By 4/30/2026 Defendant filed this Motion.

Here, MP argues that the default/default judgment was the result of excusable neglect. In support of that contention, the Declaration of Martha Soto, the Owner of the Defendant L.S. R. Builders, Inc. indicates that she received the lawsuit and did not know what to do. (Decl. of Soto¶4.) Ms. Soto indicates she immediately looked for an attorney, but could not afford to retain one. (Id¶¶5-8.) Ultimately, she states: 10. I am a lay person without legal training, but I continued to attempt to gather the funds necessary to obtain representation, and reasonably but mistakenly believed that I would be able to do so in time to respond to the Complaint before any judgment was entered.

11. When I was finally able to gather the funds to retain counsel and did retain the current counsel, I was informed by my counsel that a default and default judgment had been entered against LSR.

“ ‘ “Section 473 is often applied liberally where the party in default moves promptly to seek relief, and the party opposing the motion will not suffer prejudice if relief is granted. [Citations.] In such situations ‘very slight evidence will be required to justify a court in setting aside the default.’ [Citations.] [¶] Moreover, because 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 . . . .” ’ [Citation.]” (Kramer v. Traditional Escrow, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 13, 28.)

“Because the law favors disposing of cases on their merits, ‘any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default [citations]. Therefore, a trial court order denying relief is scrutinized more carefully than an order permitting trial on the merits.’ [Citations.]” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980.)

“ ‘[W]hen relief under section 473 is available, there is a strong public policy in favor of granting relief and allowing the requesting party his or her day in court . . . .’ [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 981-982.)

“Moreover, it has been held that where the aggrieved party makes a strong showing of diligence in seeking relief after discovery of the facts, and the other party is unable to show prejudice from the delay, the original negligence in allowing the default to be taken will be excused on a weak showing.” (Aldrich v. San Fernando Valley Lumber Co. (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 725, 740.)

Here, Default Judgment was entered within 3 months of the Complaint being served on Defendant. Defendant filed this motion within 1 month of the default judgment having been entered. Plaintiff has been diligent in bringing the motion. Also, Defendant has established no prejudice. Therefore, the Motion is GRANTED. Defendant to separately file the Answer. Defendant to give notice

107 Nguyen vs. Yadidi

26-01545507

Motion for Change of Venue (Transfer) Defendants Kayvon Yadidi, D.O., Peter Murray, Phuong Goodwin, Agile Occupational Medicine, LLC,