Motion to vacate
Moving counsel shall give notice.
302 C. vs. CTBPV The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, filed on LLC 4/7/26 by Attorney Crystal Caigoy and Slater Slater Schulman LLP, as to the representation of Plaintiff J.C., is GRANTED, subject to submission of a revised proposed order, reflecting the current trial date. Relief will then be effective upon filing of a proof of service of the signed order upon the client.
Moving counsel shall give notice.
303 Anderson vs. Defendant Nicholas Post’s motion to vacate is Specialty GRANTED. Restaurants Corporation The 2/20/26 entry of default (ROA 104) is vacated. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b) and §473.5; Post Decl. at ROA 110 demonstrates mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect; see also Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233 [requiring “very slight evidence” and resolving “all doubts ... in favor of the party seeking relief from default”].)
In addition, the Court notes that while plaintiff served the first amended complaint (FAC) on Post by substituted service, there is no declaration of diligence attached to the proof of service as required by Code Civ. Proc., §415.20, subd. (b)(1). Further, in the opposition it appears plaintiff granted a two- week extension for Post to respond to the FAC which, according to the Court’s calculations, resulted in the responsive pleading being due on 3/3/26, thus making plaintiff’s request to enter default premature.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. The default at ROA 110 is VACATED and Post is granted leave to file the proposed verified answer and proposed cross complaint attached as Exhibits A and B to the declaration of James Bohm within 10 days.
The court continues the 7/27/26 CMC to 9/8/26 at 8:45am in Dept. C24.
Post shall give notice.
304 Jinx vs. Family The Motion to Vacate or Continue the Trial Date, Orthodontics & filed on 5/11/26 by Defendants Dean Azzeh, D.D.S. Oral Surgery and Dean Azzeh D.D.S., Inc. dba Family Orthodontics & Oral Surgery (Defendants), is GRANTED as to the request for a continuance.
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?”
The Motion shows good cause for a trial continuance, as Defendants have presented evidence demonstrating that their discovery efforts have been substantially impeded by the conduct of Plaintiff here. (Foxwell Decl., ¶¶ 7-21.) Plaintiff disputes that characterization but does not object to the proposed continuance. Under these circumstances, the requested continuance is warranted. The Court therefore continues the 1/19/27 trial date to 8/30/27 at 9:30am, with all related deadlines to be continued accordingly.
Defendants shall give notice.
305 Baptiste vs. The court withholds a tentative ruling. County of Orange 306 Osorio vs. The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, filed on Bautista 4/7/26 by Attorney Derek Herrera of Avrek Law Firm, as to the representation of Plaintiff Ignacio Artemio Hernandez Osorio, is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED.
The Motion is primarily in order and unopposed. However, the proposed order needs revisions [check boxes 3(b), 5(a), and 9(a), and fill in for Boxes 6 and 7].