Lu vs. Hatoka

Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR C61 HON. JENNIFER M. MCCARTNEY

Date: 08/26/2026 Courtroom Rules and Notices

The Court will continue to upload tentative rulings as they are completed. Please be sure to keep checking until 8:30 AM on the day of your hearing.

Written responses, oppositions, or filings that are filed later than 12:15 PM the day before the hearing on the motion will go on second call by the Court for the Court to have an opportunity to review any lastminute filings. If a party files a written response, opposition, or any filing after 12:15 PM the day before the hearing, the party must ensure they are available for the Court's afternoon calendar on the day of the hearing.

Submitting on tentative rulings: If all counsel intend to submit on the tentative ruling and do not desire oral argument, please advise the Courtroom Clerk or Courtroom Attendant by calling (657) 622-5261 – both counsel need to state they are submitting on the tentative. Please do not call the Department unless all parties submit to the tentative ruling. If all sides submit on the tentative ruling and so advise the Court, the tentative ruling shall become the Court’s final ruling, and the prevailing party shall give notice of the ruling and prepare an order for the Court’s signature if appropriate under Cal. R. Ct. 3.1312.

Non-appearances: If nobody appears for the hearing and the Court has not been notified that all parties submit on the tentative ruling, the Court shall determine whether the matter is taken off calendar or the tentative ruling becomes the final ruling. The Court also might make a different order at the hearing. (Lewis v. Fletcher Jones Motor Cars, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 436, 442, fn. 1.)

# Case Name Tentative 1 30-2026-01548429 The Court has read and considered the Defendants' Motion to Reopen and Lu vs. Hatoka Reconsider Judgment (ROA 66) and Plaintiff’s Response to the Order to Show Cause (ROA 78).

The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment (ROA 53), 5/13/2026 Minute Order (ROA 56), 4/30/2026 Minute Order, 5/6/2026 Minute Order (ROA 48 & 51), and 7/9/2026 Minute Order (ROA 64).

As a threshold matter, Defendant failed to provide notice of the Motion to the Plaintiff as required under California Code of Civil Procedure §1008(a) and §1005.

California courts strongly favor voluntary settlements and will not set them aside absent a showing of fraud, undue influence, or similar grounds. (Folsom v. Butte County Association of Governments (1982) 32 Cal.3d 668, 676–677.)

When a party has not been prevented from knowing or exercising the opportunity to have a day in court or from presenting evidence and argument, the party’s own inability or failure to learn of material facts or the law does not constitute extrinsic mistake allowing the judgment to be vacated.

(National Auto & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1986) 184 Cal. App. 3d 948, 960.) Additionally, the moving party seeking to set aside must plead and prove a meritorious case entitling the party to a fair adversary hearing, establishing that if the facts were proven, a different result would be obtained. (Kuehn v. Kuehn (2000) 85 Cal. App. 4th 824, 831.) Ms. Hafoka’s 4/30/2026 Ex Parte Application to continue the original court trial date was granted and set out 13 days later. On 5/13/2026, Ms.

Hafoka appeared in court; the Court read all terms of the Stipulation on the record, and Ms. Hafoka agreed to the terms of the Stipulation. More than two months after the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, after the Plaintiff filed a declaration of noncompliance with the Stipulation seeking possession of the property, Ms. Hafoka filed a motion to vacate the Stipulation. The Defendant fails to establish fraud, undue influence, or extrinsic mistake.

The Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion to Reopen and Reconsider Judgment.

The Court’s ruling on 7/9/2026 Minute Order remains the order of the Court.

The Court LIFTS the stay of the Writ of Possession entered on 8/7/2026.

The Court Clerk is to notify the Orange County Sheriff’s Department to proceed with the lockout forthwith.

The Court Clerk is to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.

2 30-2026-01577309 The Court has read and considered the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration Yang vs. Byun of Court’s Order of June 24, 2026; Request for Relief Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1008 and §473 (ROA 26) and Defendant’s Opposition (ROA 43).

The Court takes Judicial Notice of the 7/15/2026 Minute Order (ROA 16).

This Court routinely posts tentative rulings on law and motion matters on the Superior Court’s website before the scheduled hearing, where all parties and counsel can access them. On July 24, 2026, all tentative rulings were posted before 6:26 a.m. On July 23, 2026, at 11:58 a.m., Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant’s counsel to inquire whether the motion would proceed. Four hours later, at 3:58 p.m., Defendant’s counsel responded that the motion remained on calendar for the following day and would proceed.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(c) provides, in relevant part:

“The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. The court must impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”