Motion to Set aside Notice of Settlement and Enter Judgment
JUNE 1, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 6 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________
02:00 PM LINE 3 23-CIV-02673 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. VS. RACHEL PASSARELLI
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. NICHOLAS MORELLO RACHEL PASSARELLI
Plaintiff’s Motion to Set aside Notice of Settlement and Enter Judgment
TENTATIVE RULING:
The unopposed Motion to (1) Set Aside Notice of Settlement and (2) Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation (the “Motion”) of Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is DENIED.
By its Motion, Plaintiff seeks judgment in the amount of $25,994.92, which is purportedly the remainder due pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. Motion, pp.7-12 (the “Second Stipulation”).
Service of the Motion is defective, in that it is declared to have been made only upon the “Law Offices of Ryan Wood,” though Defendant, having no counsel of record, appears to be unrepresented. Thus, there is no proof before the Court that the Motion was properly served on Defendant Rachel Passarelli.
But there are other more significant defects. The procedural history of this case is unfortunately complicated. Defendant (on August 22, 2023) and Plaintiff (on October 13, 2023) signed a Stipulation Agreement to settle this matter. Stipulation, filed on March 19, 2024 (the “First Stipulation”). Per the First Stipulation, the parties requested that the Court retain jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case (the “Notice of Settlement”) with the Court on October 26, 2023, stating that request for dismissal would be filed on August 25, 2024, because the settlement was subject to conditions which would take more than 45 days to be fulfilled.
The Court later posted a Tentative Ruling that would have granted a very similar motion to the instant one, which was to be heard on August 26, 2024, but Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew the motion, indicating that a (new) settlement had been reached. Minute Order, August 26, 2024. However, no new Notice of Settlement ever was filed.
It appears that the instant motion is directed in part to setting aside the only Notice of Settlement on record, that filed on October 26, 2023 (the “2023 NoS”), and in fact, only the 2023 NoS is attached to the Motion. Motion, pp.13-14. However, because the 2023 NoS stated that a Request for Dismissal would be filed by August 25, 2024, but that was not done, the Court warned that it would issue an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) re Dismissal. Notice of Failure to Timely File Dismissal after Conditional Settlement, filed on October 30, 2024. The Court then—twice—noticed a hearing on that OSC. Notice of Hearing – OSC Re: Dismissal Hearing as to Dismissal of Entire Action, filed on January 9, 2025, & February 21, 2025. No one appeared before the Court at the hearing on the OSC, at which the Court then dismissed the entire action. Minute Order, March 6, 2025.
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?”
Thus, this is not an active case and there is no current Notice of Settlement that the instant motion seeks to set aside. It is also notable that Plaintiff’s counsel declares under penalty of perjury that the parties
JUNE 1, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 7 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ entered the Stipulation at issue and “thereafter” filed a Notice of Settlement, but that assertions is not supported by the record in this case as there was no Notice of Settlement filed after the Second Stipulation. Dawson Decl., ¶¶ 2 & 3, & Exhs. 1 & 2.
Accordingly, the instant Motion is improper. Perhaps Plaintiff could have at some point moved to set aside the Court’s dismissal of March 6, 2025, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). However, in light of the Court’s twice-noticed and held OSC, there appears to be no excusable neglect nor other ground to support relief from the Court’s dismissal. And, in any event, the dismissal was entered on March 6, 2025 (Minute Order, March 6, 2025), but the instant Motion was not filed until November 17, 2025—well after the six months mandated by statute. Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) (“Application for this relief ... shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.”) (emphasis added).
Finally, Defendant’s purported signature and date on the submitted further settlement (the Second Stipulation, as to which no Notice of Settlement ever was filed) is not legible. Motion, p.11.
For all of these independent reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
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.