Motion to Strike
TENTATIVE RULING(S) FOR August 11, 2026 Department S37 – Judge Winston Keh This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(b) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.
You may appear in person at the hearing although remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred. (See www.sb-court.org/general-information/remote-access).
If you do not have Internet access or if you experience difficulty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the department (S-37) at (909) 708-8707 or the Administrative Assistant (909) 708-8756, who prepared the ruling.
If you (or both parties) wish to submit on the Tentative, notify the other party and call the department by 4:00 pm the day before and your appearance may be excused unless the Court orders you to appear.
You must appear at the hearing if you are so directed by the court in the tentative ruling. Be prepared to address those issues set forth by the court in its ruling.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE
RULING.
Haaga v. US Defenders
__________________________________________________________________________
TENTATIVE RULING(S):
Default History and Set Aside. On May 5, 2025, Defendant US-Defenders’ default was
entered. This was followed by default judgments entered on June 2 and July 2. On September 2,
US-Defenders moved to set aside the default judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section
473, subdivision (b). Although the title sought to set aside the default judgment, the body of the
motion requested for the set aside of the “default and any judgment thereon taken.” (Motion at p.
3:17-19.) On November 20, the Court’s granted the motion to set aside the 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?”
judgment.
Based on the granting of the set aside, Defendant US-Defenders filed its Answer on
November 20.
Plaintiff Haaga now moves to strike the Answer because Defendant US-Defenders’ default
remains, and therefore, it lacks standing to file an Answer. Defendant US-Defender opposes.
Plaintiff Haaga replies.
Analysis
Procedurally, Plaintiff’s Counsel attests to sending an email with Defense Counsel
responding that Defendant would not be withdrawing its Answer. (Soffer Decl. at ¶19.)
This is not a code-compliant meet and confer. The meet and confer needed to be in
person, by telephone, or by teleconference. Nonetheless, in this case, there is no point in
continuing the hearing to achieve a code-compliant meet and confer because it would be a futile
effort. The ultimate issue here is going to have to be resolved by the Court, so it be a waste of
time to continue the motion.
Substantively, Plaintiff is correct that a party in default cannot participate in the litigation
until his default is set aside. (Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155
Cal.App.3d 381, 385-86.) This would necessarily include filing an Answer.
Also, on the face of the November 20 Minute Order and December 11 Order, the Court
only set aside the default judgment filed on July 2. However, although Defendant’s Set Aside
Motion was titled seeking to set aside the default judgment, as noted above, the substantive
relief pled within the points and authorities was to set aside the default and any judgment
thereon. Furthermore, the predicate basis to set aside the default judgment would equally apply
to the default itself. Finally, limiting the set aside to the default judgment, as Plaintiff contends, is
illogical because to do so does not truly provide the substantive relief US-Defenders was
seeking by its set aside motion, i.e., the ability to respond to the litigation.
Ultimately, as the motion did request for the relief to set aside the default, despite the title
of the motion, the Court should hold the intent behind the motion and order was to set aside the
default and all judgments thereon and make clear that the default entered on May 5 is set
aside. Therefore, the Court DENIES striking the Answer.
RULING
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff Haaga’s Motion to Strike
Defendant US-Defenders’ Answer as the Court holds that the intent behind the November 20,
2025, ruling was to set aside the default and default judgment because it was part of the relief
prayed from in the moving papers.