| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Date |
|---|
Amended Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment
LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MAY 1, 2026
8. SPRING OAKS CAPITAL SPV, LLC v. COTTLE, 22CV1622
Amended Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment
Default and default judgment were entered on September 17, 2024.
On April 8, 2026, defendant filed an amended motion to set aside default and
default judgment. Proof of service filed April 16, 2026, shows the motion was
electronically served upon plaintiff on April 8, 2026. However, this is untimely service by
one court day. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1005, subd. (b) [requiring 16 court days’ notice
before hearing], 1013, subd. (e) [adding two court days for electronic service].)
Even if service of the motion were timely made, the court would still deny the
motion on the merits.
Defendant claims the judgment is void because: (1) the court did not have subject-
matter jurisdiction;5 and (2) plaintiff failed to comply with the Fair Debt Buying Practices (Civ. Code, § 1788.50, et seq.), namely, Civil Code sections 1788.52 (requiring a debt
buyer to possess certain information before making any written statement to a debtor
in an attempt to collect a consumer debt) and 1788.60, subdivision (b) (requiring an
authenticated copy of the underlying contract to be submitted to the court).
Each superior court has general subject matter jurisdiction and, subject to limited
exceptions not applicable here, can adjudicate any and all cases before them. (See Long
v. Forty Niners Football Co., LLC (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 550, 555–556.) The court also
notes that, on February 7, 2025, it denied plaintiff’s motion to transfer venue, finding
Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.
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?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.
Superior Court is a proper venue for this case.
Next, the requirements under Civil Code section 1788.52 relate to the first initial
written statement to a debtor in a debt buyer’s attempt to collect a consumer debt. It
5 Based on his argument, it appears defendant intended to claim that the court did not
have personal jurisdiction over defendant because the underlying incident did not occur in South Lake Tahoe, California, and defendant resides in Pollock Pines, California.
LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MAY 1, 2026
does not impose any pleading requirements that would make the default judgment void
in this case.
With respect to defendant’s challenge under Civil Code section 1788.60,
subdivision (b), the court finds that in support of its request for default judgment,
plaintiff submitted a declaration with a copy of the subject-loan agreement attached
thereto as Exhibit B, thereby satisfying the requirement under Civil Code
section 1788.60, subdivision (b).
Lastly, defendant argues that plaintiff failed to comply with California Rules of Court
(“CRC”), rule 3.740, subdivision (f), which provides: “If proofs of service of the complaint
are filed or service by publication is made and defendants do not file responsive
pleadings, the plaintiff must obtain a default judgment within 360 days after the filing of
the complaint. If the plaintiff has not obtained a default judgment by that time, the
court must issue an order to show cause why reasonable monetary sanctions should not
be imposed. The order to show cause must be vacated if the plaintiff obtains a default
judgment at least 10 court days before the order to show cause hearing.”
Plaintiff filed its complaint on November 15, 2022. Therefore, under CRC 3.740,
plaintiff was required to obtain a default judgment by November 13, 2023 (360 days
after the filing of the complaint). Plaintiff did not obtain default judgment until
September 16, 2024. The court finds, however, that CRC 3.740, subdivision (f) does not
authorize the court to set aside default judgment for plaintiff’s failure to comply with
the time requirement. The rule specifically contemplates monetary sanctions, only.
Based on the above, the court denies defendant’s motion to set aside default and
default judgment.
TENTATIVE RULING # 8: DEFENDANT’S MOTION IS DENIED. NO HEARING ON THIS
MATTER WILL BE HELD (LEWIS v. SUPERIOR COURT (1999) 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247),
UNLESS A NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS
LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MAY 1, 2026
TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE
TO THE COURT AT (530) 573-3042 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS
ISSUED. NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF AN INTENT TO APPEAR MUST BE MADE BY
TELEPHONE OR IN PERSON. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SAID NOTICE MUST BE FILED PRIOR
TO OR AT THE HEARING.