Motion for Entry of Judgment
Month June 8, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 10 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________
UD LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MONDAY, JUNE 08, 2026
02:00 PM 25-UDL-01676 REDWOOD OAKS ASSOCIATES II LP VS. ANDREA DAVIS, ET AL. LINE 8
REDWOOD OAKS ASSOCIATES II LP CHRIS A. ROUSSEAU ANDREA DAVIS PRO PER
REDWOOD OAKS ASSOCIATES II, LP’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED
For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff Redwood Oaks Associates II, LLP (“Plaintiff’s”) unopposed “Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation,” filed March 24, 2026, is GRANTED.
Background
On Jan. 27, 2026, after Plaintiff filed this residential unlawful detainer case, the parties filed a “Stipulation and Order” stating that Defendant Andrea Davis (“Defendant”) would relinquish possession of the property to Plaintiff by Feb. 22, 2026. (March 24, 2025 Paniagua-Esquivel Decl., Ex. 2.) The Stipulation stated that if Defendant failed to move-out by Feb. 22, 2026, it would constitute a material breach of the Stipulation, in which case, Plaintiff would be entitled to entry of a money judgment against Defendant in the amount of $15,507.90, plus holdover damages. The parties’ Stipulation stated that it would be enforceable by the Court pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6.
With this Motion, Plaintiff has provided evidence that Defendant materially breached the parties’ Stipulation by failing to vacate by the agreed-upon date of Feb. 22, 2026. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks entry of a money judgment against Defendant.
The Motion was served on Defendant and is unopposed.
Discussion “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court ... for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (
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?”
Plaintiff’s moving papers demonstrate compliance with Section 664.6. (March 24, 2026 Declaration of Daniel Paniagua-Esquivel.) The moving papers establish that Defendant, in breach of the parties’ Stipulation, failed to vacate the property by Feb. 22, 2026. Accordingly, per the parties’ Stipulation, Plaintiff is entitled to entry of a money Judgment in Plaintiff’s favor, and against defendant Andrea Davis, in the amount of $15,665.70, calculated as follows:
Month June 8, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 11 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ • $15,507.90 per ¶ 3 of the Stipulation; + $157.80 in holdover damages from Feb. 22, 2026 to Feb. 26, 2026 (4 days x $39.45 [daily rental value]). Paniagua-Esquivel Decl.
Accordingly, the motion is granted. Plaintiff is entitled to entry of a money judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Andrea Davis, in the amount of $15,665.70.
It is of note that Defendants appeared on June 1, 2026 to argue the motion, but failed to notify Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court continued the motion to be heard on June 8, 2026, contingent on Defendants properly noticing a contest as provided immediately below.
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.