Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside
Justin Martin (Orange County Registration No. 2655). Ms. Parker did not file a responsive pleading within the time prescribed by law. Following issuance of the Writ of Possession, Ms. Parker filed an ex parte application seeking to stay enforcement of the writ and to set aside the default. The Court granted a temporary stay and set the matter for hearing on May 12, 2026. Ms. Parker did not appear at that hearing, and the stay was lifted. Thereafter, Ms. Parker filed multiple additional ex parte applications, each of which was denied.
The Court has also considered Ms. Parker's contention that she was prevented from accessing the Court or filing documents. The record, however, demonstrates that she successfully filed numerous ex parte applications, including filings made through the Court's electronic filing system. In addition, for the May 12, 2026 hearing, the Court expressly permitted Ms. Parker to appear by video or telephone in order to accommodate the limitations she had identified. These circumstances do not support the assertion that she was denied meaningful access to the Court.
Having considered the evidence and the parties' submissions, the Court finds that Ms. Parker has not met her burden of establishing relief under California Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b). Accordingly, the Motion to Set Aside Default and Vacate the Writ of Possession is DENIED.
The Court Clerk is to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.
2 30-2026-01583760 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service Raintree Tustin, LLC of Summons (ROA 7). vs. Johnson Ms. Cardoso (Plaintiff’s Counsel) was served with mail notice on 8/3/26 of the Motion per the proof of service attached to ROA 7.
A review of the Court docket shows that no Proof of Service of Summons has been filed with this Court.
The Defendant’s Motion to Quash is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is ordered to serve the Defendant and file proof of service with this Court.
The Court Clerk is to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.
3 30-2026-01570249 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Iorio vs. Iorio (ROA 16). The attached proof of service states that on 7/15/2026 Plaintiff’s counsel was served by mail notice of this motion.
The Court finds under California Code of Civil Procedure 473(b) that the Defendant has met its burden in establishing mistake and excusable neglect of the proceedings in failing to timely file an Answer.
The Court GRANTS the Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside the Default that was entered on 7/13/2026.
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 Court Clerk is ordered to file the UD-105 Answer attached to Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside.
The Court sets August 19, 2026 at 8:30 AM in C61 for a Court Trial.
The Court Clerk is to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.
4 30-2026-01567697 The Court has read and considered the Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside the Kelly vs. Solomonian Judgment and Any Default and to Quash Any Writ of Possession/Execution (ROA 94) and Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 120).
The Court takes Judicial Notice of the 7/31/2026 Minute Order (ROA 116), the 7/22/2026 Minute Order (ROA 91), Judgment-Unlawful Detainer (ROA 64), Request for Entry of Default (ROA 65), Writ of Possession (ROA 66), Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Unlawful Detainer Complaint (ROA 52), and Order on Appeal – Appeals (ROA 123).
On June 23, 2026, the Court denied Defendants' Motion to Strike the Complaint and ordered Defendants to file an Answer within five (5) business days. Defendant Patrick Solomonian, a licensed attorney, represents both himself and Defendant Maxx Solomonian. Attorney Solomonian was present in court when the ruling was announced and therefore had actual notice of the Court's order.
On June 29, 2026, four (4) business days after the Court's June 23, 2026 order, Attorney Solomonian filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was calendared for hearing on July 10, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. Although Defendant's declaration states that the motion was filed on June 30, 2026, the Court's electronic filing record reflects that the Motion for Reconsideration (ROA 52) was filed on June 29, 2026. Attorney Solomonian did not seek ex parte relief to shorten time, did not file a petition for writ or a notice of appeal, and did not request a stay of the Court's June 23, 2026 order pending determination of the Motion for Reconsideration.
On July 10, 2026, at approximately 9:26 a.m., the Court denied Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration (ROA 60). Later that same day, at 3:54 p.m., Plaintiff electronically filed a Request for Entry of Default (ROA 65). Pursuant to that request, the Clerk entered the defaults of Defendants Patrick Solomonian and Maxx Solomonian on July 10, 2026. The Clerk thereafter entered judgment in unlawful detainer (UD-110) and issued the Writ of Possession on July 13, 2026.
Despite having actual knowledge of the Court's June 23, 2026 order requiring an Answer within five (5) business days, knowing that no stay of that order had been issued, and being aware that the Motion for Reconsideration had been denied on July 10, 2026, Attorney Solomonian did not file an Answer at any time before the defaults were entered.