Jacqueline Martin vs Michael Martin et al

Noted above, Pantoja filed an answer to Plaintiff's complaint.

The available information and evidence described above indicates or suggests, without reasonable dispute, that Rodriguez relied on Pantoja's statements that Pantoja would hire an attorney to defend Rodriguez, including by securing a dismissal of Rodriguez from this case. Though Rodriguez presents no information showing what, if any, efforts were made by Rodriguez to obtain a defense by Pantoja, Plaintiff presents no evidence or information to show that Pantoja did not make the representations or assurances described in the Rodriguez declaration. There is also no information that would indicate or suggest that Rodriguez did not act reasonably in relying on Pantoja's representations. (Weitz, supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 856.)

The present record also shows or suggests, without reasonable dispute, that Rodriguez did not learn of the default until June 16, 2026. Considering the date on which the Rodriguez Motion was filed, it appears that Rodriguez "diligently tried to set aside the default once discovered." (Rappleyea, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 983.)

Further, "[t]here is no showing that [P]laintiff was in any way prejudiced by [Rodriguez's] failure to answer on time. Even if the mistake were caused by some negligence on [Rodriguez's] part, this negligence might be excused if it in no way prejudiced [Plaintiff]." (Weitz, supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 856; see also Rappleyea, supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 983-984 [general discussion].) The court also notes that, though "there is a strong public policy in favor of the finality of judgments", no default judgment has been obtained by Plaintiff. (Rappleyea, supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 981-982.)

The court is also not persuaded by Plaintiff's contention that the Rodriguez Motion should be denied because the proposed response attached to that motion is improper or deficient. Though Code of Civil Procedure section 473 requires that an application for relief be accompanied by a copy of the proposed answer or other pleading, "[t]he plain object of the provision [is] simply to require the delinquent party seeking leave to contest on the merits, to show his good faith and readiness to at once file his answer in the event that leave is granted by producing a copy of the proposed answer for the inspection of his adversary and the court.

Substantial compliance with the provision of course requires such production in connection with the application for relief." (Los Angeles County v. Lewis (1918) 179 Cal. 398, 400.) Furthermore, "a rigid application of the 'accompanied by' requirement fails to give full remedial effect to the statute. Such an application of the statutory language is an 'unnecessarily strict' [citation] way to accomplish the statutory objectives." (County of Stanislaus v. Johnson (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 832, 837.)

For all reasons discussed above, the Rodriguez Motion is sufficient to show, expressly and by inference, that the default of Rodriguez was entered through extrinsic mistake or neglect arising from Rodriguez's reasonably justified reliance on the assurances or representations of Pantoja described in that motion, and that Rodriguez acted diligently to obtain relief after discovery the entry of default. Absent a showing of prejudice to Plaintiff, the court will "resolve[] any doubt it may have ... in favor of permitting an adjudication on the merits." (Weitz, supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 858.) For these and all further reasons discussed above, the court will grant the Rodriguez Motion, and require Rodriguez to file and serve their answer to Plaintiff's complaint in the form attached as exhibit A to the Rodriguez declaration submitted in support of that motion.

Tentative Ruling: Jacqueline Martin vs Michael Martin et al Tentative Ruling: Jacqueline Martin vs Michael Martin et al Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 08/07/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings CMC; Default Tentative Ruling -