Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment
Defendant fails to meet her burden under California Code of Civil Procedure § 473.
The Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside or Cancel Judgment.
As to the Defendant’s Motion to Seal Court Records, the Defendant describes hardships commonly associated with an eviction appearing on a person’s record. Although the Court recognizes the Defendant’s assertion that stable housing would particularly benefit her oldest child, those circumstances do not outweigh the public interest in access to court records.
The Defendant entered into a stipulation providing that the record would remain sealed so long as the Defendant satisfied the judgment, including payment of past due rent, holdover damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, by March 31, 2026. The stipulation afforded the Defendant approximately five months and twenty-five days from the date of execution to comply with those terms. On April 19, 2026, the Court ordered the case unsealed following the Defendant’s default and failure to comply with the terms of the stipulation.
The Court finds that the Defendant has failed to meet her burden under California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d). The Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion to Seal Court Records.
The Court orders the Plaintiff to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.
10 30-2026-01556559 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Western National Default and Default Judgment (ROA 31) and Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA Securities vs. Veisaga 38).
The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Answer (ROA 13), Request for Entry of Default (ROA 21), Notice of Hearing OC (ROA 24), 5/5/2026 Minute Order (ROA 25), and Notice of Entry of Judgment (ROA 30).
The Defendant, Raquel Veisaga, filed a Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment on 5/12/2026. Defendant received notice on April 21, 2026, at 7:55 AM that the Court would be holding a court trial on this unlawful detainer matter on 5/5/2026 at 8:30 AM in Department C61 (ROA 24). On 5/5/2026 at 9:43 AM, the Court called the court trial. Defendant failed to appear, Plaintiff proved their case, and judgment was entered in favor of the Plaintiff (ROA 25). Defendant states in her moving papers that on May 5, 2026, her car was towed, which she cites as the basis for her surprise and non- appearance in court.
The Defendant fails to explain why, knowing she had a court trial scheduled for that morning at 8:30 AM, she did not use other means of transportation, including the public bus system, Uber, Lyft, or asking a friend for a ride. Defendant fails to establish her burden under California Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b). The Court views her actions as inexcusable neglect.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment.
The Court orders the Plaintiff to give notice of the Court’s ruling.
11 30-2026-01561663 The Court has read and considered the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike FC Orange Associates Defendant’s Amended Answer to the Complaint (ROA 44) and the LP vs. Borden Defendant’s Opposition (ROA 52).
The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Amended Answer (ROA 31) and the Answer (ROA 16).
On April 28, 2026, at 4:10 PM, the Defendants filed their original answer in pro per. On May 11, 2026, at 11:23 AM, Defendants thought their new counsel filed an amended answer on the same date as the substitution of attorney filing. Code of Civil Procedure §430.40 allowed the Defendants in this matter to file an amended answer within 10 days after filing their original answer.
Defendant’s counsel acknowledges that they were one day over the statutory deadline to file an amended answer.
In California, public policy favors a trial on the merits rather than based on technical or procedural defaults, particularly in eviction actions where housing is at stake. Addition the Plaintiff alleges no prejudice or harm the Plaintiff suffered based on the small delay in the Defendant’s filing.
The Court DENIES the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Amended Answer.
The Court orders the Defendant to give notice of the Court’s ruling.
12 30-2025-01530495 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Ex Parte Stay of FMMB Big Lakes, Execution of Writ of Possession (ROA 87) and Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA LLC vs. Alvarez 94).
The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment (ROA 64) and Judgment-Unlawful Detainer (ROA 66).
Defendant argues that the Court should enforce the stipulation signed by the parties and approved by the Court on April 1, 2026. In substance, however, Defendant seeks modification of the Stipulation and an order requiring Plaintiff to accept terms different from those agreed upon by the parties.
The Stipulation expressly provides that “no stay of execution of Judgment of any kind or for any reason shall be allowed to any Defendants, or any third party.” The Stipulation further states that “Defendants further confirm that they have reviewed this Stipulation with their Counsel.”
The parties specifically agreed that Defendant was required to close escrow on or before April 30, 2026, pursuant to detailed terms that included transfer by quitclaim deed. According to Defendant’s own declaration, the escrow