DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26-UDL-00053·sanmateo·Civil·Unlawful Detainer
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED

DONALD C. ROTTIERS, ET AL. VS. JULIE ROTTIERS, ET AL.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Hearing date
May 19, 2026
Department
4
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffDONALD C. ROTTIERS
DefendantJULIE ROTTIERS

Attorneys

JEFFREY R. WINDSORfor Plaintiff

Ruling

May 19, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 27 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

2:00 PM LINE 15 26-UDL-00053 DONALD C. ROTTIERS, ET AL. VS. JULIE ROTTIERS, ET AL.

DONALD C. ROTTIERS JEFFREY R. WINDSOR JULIE ROTTIERS PRO SE

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s motion for relief from the April 17, 2026, default and the April 23, 2026 default judgment is Granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). Defendant’s declaration provides sufficient evidence to show that the default was entered as a result of defendant’s excusable neglect. Defendant shall file her proposed responsive pleading no later than May 27, 2026.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant 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.

POSTED: 3:00 PM

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share