Yang vs. Byun

(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.”

Where a party has completely failed to respond timely to requests for admission, section 2033.280 does not require a meet-and-confer before bringing a motion to deem the matters admitted.

Plaintiff’s counsel did not request a continuance before the July 24, 2026 hearing, although such a request could have been electronically filed. No attorney or other representative from the Law Office of Bruce C. Bridgman appeared at the hearing, and no one contacted the Court to request a continuance based on an emergency or other circumstance.

The record also reflects that, on July 15, 2026, the matter was on calendar for a hearing on the Demurrer to the Complaint. Plaintiff’s counsel did not appear at that hearing. The Court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s counsel did not move at that hearing, or thereafter, to take the Motion to Deem Answer Admitted off calendar.

Based on the record before it, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met its burden under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1008 or 473. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

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

4 30-2026-01587961 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Demurrer (ROA 11) and 922 S. Park Circle, the Complaint (ROA 2). LLC vs. Velazquez The Court OVERRULES the Demurrer.

The Defendant is ordered to file an Answer within 5 calendar days.

Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.

Date: 08/28/2026 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 on the day before the hearing, the party must ensure they are available for the Court's afternoon calendar the day of the hearing.

Submitting on tentative rulings: If all counsel/parties 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.