DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
22CV398311·santaclara·Civil·Cross-Complaint
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED

Javier Cruz vs Eric Hansen

Motion to Strike Answer to Cross-Complaint

Hearing date
May 22, 2026
Department
13
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$8,351.06$1,035.75

Parties

PlaintiffJavier Cruz
DefendantEric Hansen

Ruling

Calendar Line 5

Case Name: Javier Cruz vs Eric Hansen Case Number: 22CV398311

Defendant/Cross-Complainant ERIC C. HANSEN (Hansen) moves the Court to strike the Answer of JAVIER JOSE CRUZ (Cruz) to Hansen’s Cross-Complaint and to enter his default thereon and for an award of monetary sanctions.

As is apparent from the record in this case, Cruz did nothing to prosecute his case and has done nothing in defense of the Cross-Complaint. The Court has ordered Cruz to pay additional monetary sanctions in a total amount of $8,351.06 and he has paid nothing. Hansen’s motion is well taken. Not surprisingly, Cruz has filed no opposition to the motion. “[T]he failure to file an opposition creates an inference that the motion ... is meritorious.” (Sexton v. Super Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Hansen’s motion is GRANTED. Cruz’s answer to the Cross-Complaint is hereby STRICKEN. Hansen may therefore pursue default and default judgment on the Cross- Complaint.

In addition, Hansen’s request for additional monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,035.75 is GRANTED. Cruz shall pay Hansen this additional $1,035.75 within 30 days of the date of service of this order.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Hansen shall prepare the final order accompanied by Form EFS-020 within 10 days of the date of the hearing.

- oo0oo -

20

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