DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CUD24676641·sf·Civil·Unlawful Detainer
Hearing about 1 year agoGRANTED in part and DENIED in part

NORTH POINT VALLEY LLC VS. HEATHER CAPATI ET AL

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT/DEFAULT JUDGMENT/LEAVE TO DEFEND

Hearing date
Jun 4, 2025
Department
501
Judge
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffNORTH POINT VALLEY LLC
DefendantHEATHER CAPATI
DefendantALLISTER CAPATI

Ruling

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for June 4, 2025 line 4. DEFENDANT ALLISTER CAPATI MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT/DEFAULT JUDGMENT/LEAVE TO DEFEND is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. No opposition filed.

The default of defendant Allister Capati is set aside. The default judgment entered on December 9, 2024 is vacated.

The request to recall the writ issued on December 12, 2024 is denied as moot. The writ was returned fully satisfied on February 19, 2025, and as such there is no active writ for the Court to recall. Defendant provides no authority, nor is the Court aware of any authority, that a writ of possession may be recalled after it has been executed in an unlawful detainer action. =(501/HEK)

Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849).

Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required.

Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear. | |

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