DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV147971·alameda·Civil·Civil Litigation
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED

LOMAX vs ZAMBRANO

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal (CCP 473)

Hearing date
May 28, 2026
Department
24
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffLomax
DefendantMiguel Zambrano

Ruling

25CV147971: LOMAX vs ZAMBRANO 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal (CCP 473) filed by Miguel Zambrano (Defendant) CRS# 781241674230 in Department 24

Tentative Ruling - 05/26/2026 Rebekah Evenson

The Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default filed by Miguel Zambrano on 02/25/2026 is Granted.

Defendant Miguel Zambrano’s “Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment” is GRANTED, as follows.

The Court observes that Defendant’s default was entered on November 24, 2025, but no default judgment has been entered in this case.

Defendant has filed a declaration, under penalty of perjury, stating that contrary to the statements in the process server’s proof of service filed on October 27, 2025, Defendant was not personally served with the summons and complaint and was not at home at the time of the purported service. Defendant further states that neither the summons and complaint nor any other papers were left at his home by the process server, and that Defendant did not learn about this lawsuit until he received a copy of the request for default judgment in the mail on December 1, 2025 (seven days after his default had been entered.) Defendant’s evidence establishes the basis for relief from default pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473(d) and/or 473.5.

The default of Defendant Miguel Zambrano entered on November 24, 2025 is SET ASIDE and VACATED.

Defendant shall file and serve his Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint by June 5, 2026.

PLEASE NOTE that the proposed Answer submitted for the Court’s consideration is NOT deemed filed or served on anyone.

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