Suezo v. Calip
Order to Show Cause re Sanctions/Dismissal
Motion type
Causes of action
Monetary amounts referenced
Parties
Ruling
24CV082923: SUEZO vs CALIP 07/14/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions/Dismissal in Department 517
Tentative Ruling - 07/13/2026 Keith Fong
CASE NAME: Suezo v. Calip CASE NO.: 24CV082923 MATTER: Order to Show Cause re Sanctions/Dismissal HEARING DATE: July 14, 2026 DEPT: 517 JUDICIAL OFFICER: Fong
PROPOSED TENTATIVE
Order to Show Cause re Sanctions/Dismissal: The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiffs failure to comply with the Courts orders and applicable procedural requirements.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of contract action. Plaintiff Mylette Suezo alleges that Defendant Marjory L. Calip failed to repay two personal loans totaling $20,000 made in February 2024, leaving a balance of $19,750 after a single $3,000 partial payment in June 2024.
Plaintiff filed this action on July 10, 2024. At the October 14, 2025 case management conference, the parties stipulated to accept electronic service for all purposes, and the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve the First Amended Complaint and file a proof of service.
On April 21, 2026, the Court denied Plaintiffs initial application for default judgment and issued an Order to Show Cause re Sanctions/Dismissal, based in part on Plaintiffs failure to file a case management statement and failure to appear at the case management conference. The Court directed Plaintiff to cure the identified defects and file a renewed application by May 19, 2026.
Plaintiff filed a renewed application on May 20, 2026one day after the court-ordered deadline. On June 8, 2026, the Court denied the renewed application because Plaintiff again failed to provide a clear and supported calculation of prejudgment interest. To afford Plaintiff a further opportunity to cure, the Court continued the Order to Show Cause and ordered Plaintiff to file a corrected default judgment application by July 2, 2026. The Court expressly warned that continued failure to comply with court orders and procedural requirements may result in monetary sanctions and/or dismissal of the action.
The continued Order to Show Cause re Sanctions/Dismissal is set for July 14, 2026. As of the date of this ruling, Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, has not filed a corrected default judgment application and nothing further in response to the Courts June 8, 2026 order. 24CV082923: SUEZO vs CALIP 07/14/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions/Dismissal in Department 517 LEGAL STANDARD
A trial court has authority to dismiss an action for a partys failure to comply with the courts orders and applicable procedural requirements. Under the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act, judges have all the powers to impose sanctions authorized by law, including the power to dismiss actions, if it appears that less severe sanctions would not be effective after taking into account the effect of previous sanctions or previous lack of compliance in the case. (Gov. Code, § 68608, subd. (b).) The court may also, on its own motion and after notice and an opportunity to be heard, dismiss an action where counsel or a party fails to comply with applicable requirements. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 575.2, subd. (a).) These powers supplement the courts inherent authority to dismiss. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.150.) A trial court does not abuse its discretion in dismissing an action after a plaintiff fails to comply or to appear in the face of a noticed order to show cause regarding dismissal. (California Casualty Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Mendoza (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 678, 682.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to comply with the Courts orders and with the procedural requirements governing entry of default judgment. The Court twice identified the same deficiency, the absence of a clear and supported calculation of prejudgment interest, and twice afforded Plaintiff an opportunity to cure it. Plaintiff missed the May 19, 2026 deadline, and the application filed one day later did not remedy the defect.
In its June 8, 2026 order, the Court gave Plaintiff a final opportunity, ordering a corrected default judgment application by July 2, 2026, and expressly warning that continued noncompliance may result in dismissal. Plaintiff, though represented by counsel, has filed nothing. Given this history of repeated noncompliance, less severe sanctions would not be effective. (Gov. Code, § 68608, subd. (b).) Plaintiff has received ample notice and an opportunity to be heard, both through the continued Order to Show Cause and this tentative ruling. (Code Civ. Proc., § 575.2, subd. (a).) On this record, dismissal is an appropriate exercise of the Courts discretion. (California Casualty Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Mendoza, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 682.)
Because the identified deficiencies concern the form and proof of Plaintiffs default judgment application rather than the merits of the underlying claim, dismissal is without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
The Order to Show Cause re Sanctions/Dismissal is discharged. The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiffs failure to comply with the Courts orders and applicable procedural requirements. (Gov. Code, § 68608, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., §§ 575.2, subd. (a), 583.150.)
HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
24CV082923: SUEZO vs CALIP 07/14/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions/Dismissal in Department 517
THROUGH ECOURT
Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select Search?
4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling?
7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed?
BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4pm (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing.
BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.
ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 517 IS BELOW.
Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16181989812
Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 One tap mobile +16692545252,,16181989812# US (San Jose) 16692161590,,16181989812# US +(San Jose)
IF APPEARING BY ZOOM, VIDEO MUST BE ENABLED. THE COURT DOES NOT ALLOW APPEARANCES BY PHONE WITHOUT PRIOR LEAVE OF COURT.
Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose) +1 551 285 1373 US +1 646 828 7666 US (New York) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 Find your local number: https://www.zoomgov.com/u/ad6x1ZH23d
Join by SIP
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
24CV082923: SUEZO vs CALIP 07/14/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions/Dismissal in Department 517 16181989812@sip.zoomgov.com
Join by H.323 161.199.138.10 (US West) 161.199.136.10 (US East) Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812
Cited authorities
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”