MOTION OF CROSS-DEFENDANT HAMID JAREBEAN TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT
August 4, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 14 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 9 24-CIV-06622 HAMID JARIBEAN, ET AL. VS. GEORGE RUNCIE, ET AL.
HAMID JARIBEAN PRO SE GEORGE RUNCIE STEVEN R. ROESER
MOTION OF CROSS-DEFENDANT HAMID JAREBEAN TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT
TENTATIVE RULING:
The court DENIES plaintiff/cross-defendant Hamid Jaribean’s (plaintiff) motion to set aside a default entered against him in this matter. Defendants George and Nathalie Runcie have opposed the motion.
Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice of is GRANTED.
Plaintiff, then-represented by attorney Reshma Kamath, filed his complaint on October 24, 2024. On December 6, 2024, defendants filed and served their cross-complaint against plaintiff and coplaintiff HR Construction & Remodeling. On October 21, 2025, the court entered a default against plaintiff. On November 8, 2025, Ms. Kamath’s license to practice law was declared inactive by the State Bar. (RJN, Ex. A., State Bar Attorney Profile, License Status.) On April 24, 2026, more than six months after default was filed, plaintiff filed a notice of substitution of attorney – signed November 20, 2025 – substituting Ms. Kamath out and proceeding in pro per. Also on April 24, 2026, plaintiff filed the instant motion to set aside default, for which the proof of service was electronically signed by Ms. Kamath. On June 26, 2026, Ms. Kamath was disbarred.
The law favors judgments based on the merits, not procedural missteps. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly reminded us that in this area doubts must be resolved in favor of relief, with an order denying relief scrutinized more carefully than an order granting it. “As Justice Mosk put it in Rappleyea [v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975] Because the law favors disposing of cases on their merits, any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default [citations].” (Lasalle v. Vogel (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 127, 134–135 [internal quotations omitted].)
However, in most instances, the law also sets deadlines for motions for relief from default and in all circumstances established rules to obtain relief from default.
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?”
Plaintiff argues that the default should be set aside because no summons was ever served. This argument fails because plaintiff was already a party to the case, having filed the initial complaint. For represented parties who have appeared, a cross-complaint shall be served upon the party’s attorney in the same manner provided for notices during litigation of the case. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.60, subd. (2).) The cross-complaint was served on the attorney of record by email.
August 4, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 15 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
Similarly for the same reason, the entry of default is not void because there was proper service of the cross-complaint and legally sufficient service supporting default. It was proper for crosscomplainant to serve plaintiff’s counsel by email.
While the best practice is for counsel to provide notice before default is entered, plaintiff acknowledges that his counsel received notice of the request for entry of default, and neither plaintiff’s counsel or plaintiff took any action for more than six months after the cross-complaint. At the time of default, the cross-complaint had been pending ten months (defendants served the cross-complaint on December 6, 2024, and default was not entered until October 21, 2025.)
Plaintiff suggests that the court can grant equitable relief based upon his attorneys’ status. There is case law which allows such relief. (See e.g. (Moghaddam v. Bone (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 283, 290; People v. One Parcel of Land (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 579, 584; Orange Empire Nat. Bank v. Kirk (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 347, 354, but see Kendall v. Barker (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 619, 625-626.)
If plaintiff believes that he has facts to support this court granting relief based upon attorney misconduct, he should properly contest the tentative ruling and make an offer of proof of these facts at the hearing. The court will then consider continuing the hearing and allowing for further briefing. If the tentative ruling is not properly contested or if a proper offer of proof is not made, then the motion is denied.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court as the motion being denied. Thereafter, counsel for defendant/cross-complainant shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, 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 the California Rules of Court.