DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23-CIV-04969·sanmateo·Civil·Civil
Hearing about 1 month agoGRANTED

GUILLERMO CORONEL VS. LARELL CARL FRANKLIN

Plaintiff Guillermo Coronel’s Motion to Vacate Entry of Default

Hearing date
Jul 27, 2026
Department
11
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffGuillermo Coronel
DefendantLarell Carl Franklin

Attorneys

Cesar R. Fumarfor Plaintiff

Ruling

July 27, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 4 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________

02:00 PM 23-CIV-04969 GUILLERMO CORONEL VS. LARELL CARL FRANKLIN LINE 2

GUILLERMO CORONEL CESAR R. FUMAR LARELL CARL FRANKLIN

PLAINTIFF GUILLERMO CORONEL’S MOTION TO VACATE ENTRY OF DEFAULT

TENTATIVE RULING:

The unopposed motion to vacate default judgment is granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 187. The default entered on June 20, 2024 was premature because no statement of damages was served prior to entry as required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.11. Accordingly the Court hereby ORDERS the default VACATED.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept.11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the California Rules of Court. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be efiled only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations 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

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share