Motion to set aside court default
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210
DATE: July 21, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)
**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**
Line 5 25CV467887 Lloyd Baylis et al. v. Ted Defendant TLR Masonry’s motion to set aside court default. Ricks et al. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) Notice is proper and the motion is unopposed.
Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) gives trial courts discretion to set aside a judgment “taken against the party through the party’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Relief under that section is appropriate only “ ‘where a party is unexpectedly placed in a situation to his injury without fault or negligence of his own and against which ordinary prudence could not have guarded.’ ” (Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1206.) The party seeking relief bears the burden of proof. (Id. at p. 1205.)
The motion “shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) And the motion “shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein.” (Ibid.)
A declaration by codefendant Ted Ricks indicates he did not understand that he was being served both in his individual capacity and as the principal of TLR Masonry. Although the court would is inclined to grant relief based on that showing, the motion is deficient because it was not accompanied by a copy of the answer or other responsive pleading proposed to be filed by defendant TLR Masonry. Counsel’s declaration statement that defendant has “prepared responsive pleadings Answer that are ready to be filed” does not satisfy the statute’s mandatory requirement that the pleading accompany the motion.
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?”
Given that the motion is unopposed, the court will continue the hearing on the motion to allow defendant to lodge a proposed responsive pleading. The motion is CONTINUED to August 25, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 10. The court will also hold a further case management conference on August 25, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210
DATE: July 21, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)
**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**
in Department 10. Defendant is ordered to file and serve an updated declaration with a proposed responsive pleading attached no later than July 29, 2026. Defendant is also ordered to provide notice of the continued motion hearing and the further case management conference. The court will prepare the order.
Line 6 25CV469470 Brandon Spitzack v. Ford Click LINE 6 or scroll down for ruling. Motor Company et al.
Line 7 25CV477921 Edward Jenkins v. Jim Plaintiff Edward Jenkins’s motion to compel discovery against Kanomata et al. defendant Grace Kanomata. Notice is not proper; there is no proof of service of the motion. There is also no proof of service of summons on file for defendant Grace Kanomata. Discovery cannot commence until a defendant is served the summons and complaint. The motion also does not identify what type of discovery plaintiff seeks, citing only Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 (describing the general scope of discoverable matters). The motion is DENIED. The court will prepare the order.
Line 8 26CV486559 Eric Wiedemann v. Click LINE 8 or scroll down for ruling. Juggernaut Consulting, LLC et al.
- oo0oo -
9:01 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING
Line 1 22CV403081 Camhong Pham v. David Abel Motion by defense counsel to be relieved as counsel of et al. record. Parties ordered to appear.
- oo0oo -
6