MIKE LANG VS. ANTHONY JACKSON, ET AL

JUNE 1, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 21 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________

02:00 PM LINE 11 26-UDL-00144 MIKE LANG VS. ANTHONY JACKSON, ET AL

MIKE LANG PRO SE ANTHONY JACKSON PRO SE

MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND ENTER ANOTHER AND DIFFERENT JUDGMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

The unopposed motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Defendant has provided insufficient proof that plaintiff was served with the moving papers. The Proof of Service filed on April 16, 2026, does not state the name and address of the person served as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a. In addition, the notice of motion does not clearly identify the party making the motion. To the extent the motion was intended to be made on behalf of both defendants, a defendant who is not an attorney may not represent a co-defendant.

The Court also notes that Defendant cites Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b)(d). Subsection (d) in inapplicable on its face as it deals with clerical errors and void judgments, neither of which are asserted here. Subsection (b) requires a showing of excusable neglect. Here, Defendant argues that he appeared in Court on March 9, 2026 and his case was not called. The hearing on March 9, 2026 was on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and required Defendant to provide advanced notice that he sought to contest the Court’s tentative ruling. Further, Defendant did not file an opposition to the motion. Accordingly, even if Defendant’s assertion was factually supported, it would not establish excusable neglect meriting exercise of the Court’s discretion in his favor.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, plaintiff’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.