DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CECG02079·fresno·Civil·Civil
Hearing todayDENIED without prejudice

Thacker v. Anguiano

Motion for Entry of Default Judgment

Hearing date
Aug 20, 2026
Department
403
Judge
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffThacker
DefendantAnguiano

Ruling

(35) Tentative Ruling

Re: Thacker v. Anguiano Superior Court Case No. 23CECG02079

Hearing Date: August 20, 2026 (Dept. 403)

Motion: By Plaintiff for Entry of Default Judgment

Tentative Ruling:

To deny without prejudice.

If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Tuesday, August 25, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 403.

Explanation:

A party seeking a default judgment on declarations must use a mandatory Form CIV-100, and must additionally file: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a declaration of nonmilitary status as to each defendant against whom the judgment is sought; (6) a proposed form of judgment; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom the judgment is not sought; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorney fees if applicable. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1800(a).)

Here, no papers were filed in advance of the hearing. Applications for default judgment on declarations pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 585, subdivision (d) are preferred. (Fresno Superior Court Local Rules, rule 2.1.14.) In any event, the absence of the mandatory Form CIV-100 alone requires a denial.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: SMC on August 19, 2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

6

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