Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons
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?”