Motion to set aside entry of default
Cal.App.4th 1003, 1007; Shah v. McMahon (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 526, 529.)
Notice of Pendency of Action
As the party responsible for filing the lis pendens, Plaintiff Miguel Mendoza bears the burden of proof here. Plaintiff chose not to oppose the motion and, thus, fails to meet his burden. Furthermore, the court notes that the court record—including the ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, entry of judgment, and absence of any notice of appeal—shows no probable validity justifying the continued maintenance of the lis pendens.
Moving party to give notice.
10 South Coast TENTATIVE RULING: Medical Center for New For the reasons set forth below, Defendant Melanie Copeland’s motion Medicine, Inc. to set aside entry of default is GRANTED. vs. Gama
The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (Civ. Proc. Code § 473(b).) “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.) “Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk . . . or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered . . . .” (Id.)
The law favors a trial on the merits, and doubts in applying Code of Civil Procedure section 473 are resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default. (Iott v. Franklin (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 521, 526.) If a party moves promptly for default relief, or if the granting of the relief from default will not prejudice the opposing party (other than losing the advantage of the default), only slight evidence will justify an order granting such relief. (Id;
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?”
Here, the court finds that Defendant Copeland has moved for relief from default within a reasonable amount of time. Default was taken on October 28, 2025 (when Defendant Copeland was still unrepresented) and Defendant Copeland retained an attorney and filed for relief on December 11, 2025—less than one and a half months later.
Plaintiffs take issue with the fact that Copeland was personally served on September 23, 2025, but did not seek relief until December 11, 2025. The court finds that Defendant Copeland’s mistake in failing to file a timely answer was excusable. The face of the complaint did not name Copeland as a Defendant. While Copeland was added as a Doe amendment, which was served on Copeland, for a layperson who is not an attorney, the court can understand the confusion. Plaintiffs have not shown any prejudice in allowing this action to continue on the merits.
Defendant has also filed a proposed answer with the motion (See Exhibit 1) and has substantially complied with the procedural requirements of section 473(b). Given the liberal policy of favoring a determination on the merits, the court finds that Defendant has met the standard for relief from default under section 473(b).
The motion is, therefore, GRANTED.
Defendant Copeland is ordered to file an answer that conforms with the proposed answer attached to the motion within 15-days of this order.
Moving Defendant to give notice.
11 Diyar Irvine, TENTATIVE RULING: LLC vs. Elzoheiry Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint
Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Cross-Defendant Andrew Abas (Abas) moves for leave to file a Cross-Complaint. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
Statement of Law
Code Civ. Proc. § 428.10 provides that a party may file a cross- complaint setting forth: “[a]ny cause of action he has against a person alleged to be liable thereon, whether or not such person is already a party to the action, if the cause of action asserted in his cross- complaint (1) arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause brought against him or (2)