Haaga v. US Defenders

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

judgment. Thereafter, on December 11, the Court signed an Order setting aside the July 2

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.