Motion for Summary Adjudication
Browse all Motion for Summary Adjudication rulings statewide →
properly served by substituted service. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20.)
Further, the declaration does not affirm that Defendant Ruben Reveles’ lack of notice was not caused by his avoidance or service or inexcusable neglect. In fact, he does not explain why he did not receive actual notice even though substituted service was effectuated in this case.
(Ibid.) The court continued the hearing on the motion to allow Defendants to supplement the declaration, but warned that “unless Defendants provide evidence sufficient to meet the requirements of Section 473.5, the court must deny the motion.” (Ibid.)
Since the court continued the hearing on the motion more than 3 1⁄2 months ago, Defendants have not supplemented the declaration.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above and in its prior ruling, the court will deny the motion to set aside default.
Corporation Must Be Represented By Counsel
In its prior ruling, the court also informed Defendants that “Defendant R&R Construction and Real Estate Development, Inc. appears to be a corporation, which cannot represent itself and must retain counsel to act on its behalf in court.” (See ROA #54 at p. 2.)
The court also warned that “[t]herefore, unless Defendant R&R Construction and Real Estate Development, Inc. is represented by counsel, the court must deny the motion as to that corporation.” (Ibid.)
Since the court’s last ruling, no counsel has appeared in this case to represent Defendant R&R Construction and Real Estate Development, Inc., nor has the corporation presented any evidence that it is represented by counsel in this case.
Thus, the court will deny the motion to set aside default as to Defendant R&R Construction and Real Estate Development, Inc.
The court clerk shall give notice of this ruling.
9 Kelley vs. Sunshine Motion for Summary Adjudication Behavioral Health
LLC Defendant Sunshine Behavioral Health LLC dba Monarch Shores’ Motion for Summary Adjudication is CONTINUED to November 30, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department N15 30-2024-01421448 pursuant to the court’s orders of July 17, 2026. (See ROA #82.)
10 Perez vs. City of Motions for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Santa Ana Adjudication
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?”
Defendant Musco Sports Lighting, LLC’s Motion for Summary 30-2024-01374852 Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is taken OFF CALENDAR pursuant to the Request for Dismissal as to Defendant Musco Sports Lighting, LLC only from the First Amended Complaint, filed July 10, 2026 (ROA #263).
Cross-Defendants Musco Sports Lighting, LLC’s and RMF Contracting, Inc. dba R&M Electrical Contracting’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is taken OFF CALENDAR pursuant to the Request for Dismissal as to Cross-Defendants RMF Contracting, Inc. and Musco Sports Lighting, LLC only, filed April 8, 2026 (ROA #254), and the Notice of Withdrawal of Motion for Summary Judgment, filed June 8, 2026 (ROA #258).