DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV126432·alameda·Civil·Civil Litigation
Hearing todayGRANTED

GARCIA vs MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., A CORPORATION, et al.

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5)

Hearing date
Sep 8, 2026
Department
22
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffGARCIA
DefendantMARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Cross-DefendantSP Plus LLC

Ruling

25CV126432: GARCIA vs MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., A CORPORATION, et al. 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5) filed by SP Plus LLC, a limited liability company (Cross-Defendant) CRS# 669777387774 in Department 22

Tentative Ruling - 09/03/2026 Han N. Tran

The Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default filed by SP Plus LLC, a limited liability company on 08/05/2026 is Granted.

Cross-defendant SP Plus LLC's unopposed motion to set aside default is GRANTED. The record indicates that the parties stipulated to set aside the default. (Larsen Decl., Exh. D.) Crossdefendant filed an answer on July 31, which was accepted by the court. The court will sign Cross-defendant's proposed order.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH eCOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed” BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK (dept22@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing.

This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely. Notice via BOTH eCourt AND email is required. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no party contests the tentative ruling.

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