What is a Motion for Relief from Judgment?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Relief from Judgment

Recent Rulings on Motion for Relief from Judgment

HARRIETT E. HAYWOOD VS RTED AMERICA, LLC, ET AL

Motion for Equitable Relief from Judgment on Grounds of Fraud The court considered the moving and opposition papers. RULING The motion is DENIED. BACKGROUND On May 5, 2017, Harriett E. Haywood filed a complaint against RTED America, LLC and Special Default Services, Inc. for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) promissory estoppel, (4) negligence, (5) unfair business practices, (6) negligent misrepresentation, and (7) quiet title.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

HARRIETT E. HAYWOOD VS RTED AMERICA, LLC, ET AL

Motion for Equitable Relief from Judgment on Grounds of Fraud The court considered the moving and opposition papers. RULING The motion is DENIED. BACKGROUND On May 5, 2017, Harriett E. Haywood filed a complaint against RTED America, LLC and Special Default Services, Inc. for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) promissory estoppel, (4) negligence, (5) unfair business practices, (6) negligent misrepresentation, and (7) quiet title.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

JOI STEPHENS, ET AL. V. REICKER, PFAU, PYLE & MCROY, LLP, ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Relief from Judgment Tentative

  • Hearing

JOI STEPHENS, ET AL. V. REICKER, PFAU, PYLE & MCROY, LLP, ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Relief from Judgment Motion: Relief from Judgment Attorneys: Plaintiff: John B. Richards; Defendants: Heather L. Rosing Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Ruling: T he motion is Denied. Analysis: While Plaintiff has captioned her and her counsel’s requests for relief as a section 473 motion, section 473 is not applicable.

  • Hearing

DIANNA ZOHRABYAN VS ENRICH FINANCIAL, INC., ET AL.

Here, because this motion was brought within six months of March 16, 2020, when default judgment was entered, defendants are entitled to mandatory relief from judgment. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. The default entered against defendants Enrich Financial, Inc. and Arian J. Eghbali on November 20, 2019 and default judgment entered against these defendants on March 16, 2020 are SET ASIDE. Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, defendant filed a proposed answer. (Def. Mem. of P&As Ex. 3.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST INC VS CITIZEN JANE PRODUCTION

The Court DENIES Judgment Debtor’s motion for relief from judgment.

  • Hearing

STRATEGIC FUNDING SOURCE, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION VS THANH H NGUYEN

(CCP § 473(b) [“Application for this relief [from judgment] shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted . . . .”].) Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SUPERIOR COURT VS. BRENT OSTER FL COMPLAINT

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT; AND 2. LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AFTER GRANTING OF ANTI-SLAPP MOTION. I. Statement of Facts Plaintiff, Brent Oster (Mr. Oster) again seeks to amend his initial complaint which he filed on 8 October 2019.5 Mr. Oster requested that this Court “grant him relief against the Moreno Family Law Firm and the Law Firm of J.

  • Hearing

DOMINGUEZ V NICHOLS

Kirk (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 347, 352-353 [defendant’s lawyer failed to file an answer raising defenses on defendant’s behalf, failed to appear at trial or seek relief from judgment despite assurances to defendant that he would; defendant entitled to relief under court’s equitable power because lawyer had de facto substituted himself out of case].)

  • Hearing

DOMINGUEZ V NICHOLS

Kirk (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 347, 352-353 [defendant’s lawyer failed to file an answer raising defenses on defendant’s behalf, failed to appear at trial or seek relief from judgment despite assurances to defendant that he would; defendant entitled to relief under court’s equitable power because lawyer had de facto substituted himself out of case].)

  • Hearing

MANGOLD V. ASHBY

Kirk (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 347, 352-353 [defendant’s lawyer failed to file an answer raising defenses on defendant’s behalf, failed to appear at trial or seek relief from judgment despite assurances to defendant that he would; defendant entitled to relief under court’s equitable power because lawyer had de facto substituted himself out of case].)

  • Hearing

NAREK DAVITYAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL S

Davityan commenced the instant action on June 15, 2018 and section 352.1(a) has no bearing on relief from judgment. The City also correctly notes that Davityan’s claim fails under section 473(b) because Davityan failed to file the instant motion within the six-month period required by that section. Opp. at 2. The court entered judgment on May 20, 2019 and Davityan did not file the instant motion until March 12, 2020, well after six months had elapsed.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DEE ANN ABELAR ET AL VS JOHN R DINGILIAN M.D. ET AL

Having failed to demonstrate grounds for mandatory or discretionary relief from judgment in favor of Juong H. Lee, M.D., plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (2) (DEFENDANTS ANAND/HAKIMISEFAT/TRIVEDI) [CCP §438] Date: 7/17/20 (8:30 AM) Case: Dee Ann Abelar, et al. v. John R. Dingilian, M.D., et al. (BC641637) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Wayneinder S. Anand, M.D.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

KURT KULAS VS ADMANIAX, LLC

When a party seeks equitable relief from judgment pursuant to extrinsic mistake, the six-month limit applicable does not apply. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981.) Extrinsic mistake occurs when “circumstances extrinsic to the litigation have unfairly cost a party a hearing on the merits.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981.)

  • Hearing

PHILLIPS VS. SHBOOM NIGHTCLUB

Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 918 (motion labeled motion for reconsideration construed and determined by the Court as a motion for relief from judgment under CCP § 473(b)). "The principle that a trial court may consider a motion regardless of the label placed on it by a party is consistent with the court's inherent authority to manage and control its docket." Id. at 930. See also Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 187, 193.

  • Hearing

ALFRET MORADIAN, ET AL. VS DAVID LALIBERTE, ET AL.

That case held that an attorney’s mistake in failing to include attorneys’ fees in a section 998 offer was not a proper basis for relief from judgment under section 473, subdivision (b). They argue the decision in Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249 does not apply here because that case dealt with a typographical error. In Zamora, the California Supreme Court stated, “Although the law favors settlements [citation], it only favors authorized settlements.

  • Hearing

SALAS VS GUSTAVO

On December 13, 2019, the Court granted that request and backdated the effective date of the removal to the date when Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Relief from Judgment in which they represented that they were now representing themselves in pro per. Defendant now opposes Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment. Merits of Motion Plaintiffs move for relief from judgment under C.C.P. § 473(b).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HARRIETT E. HAYWOOD VS RTED AMERICA, LLC, ET AL

Motion for Relief from Judgment on Ground of Intrinsic Fraud The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. RULING The motion is DENIED. BACKGROUND On May 5, 2017, Harriett E. Haywood filed a complaint against RTED America, LLC and Special Default Services, Inc. for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) promissory estoppel, (4) negligence, (5) unfair business practices, (6) negligent misrepresentation, and (7) quiet title.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

YOUNG VS. HSBC BANK USA, A US CORPORATION

CCP§473(b) provides relief from judgment taken “through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect”. CCP§473(d) provides relief from a judgment with clerical errors, or a void judgment. Here, Plaintiff cites to CCP§473 generally and fails to cite to either subsection, specifically. Plaintiff makes no showing that any mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect was involved in the Court granting the Motion for Judgment of Non-Suit.

  • Hearing

ARNON RAPHAEL VS. YAMEE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Equity – To the extent that Defendant move for relief from judgment on the basis of the Court’s equitable powers, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to establish adequate basis to justify such a remedy.

  • Hearing

SALAS VS GUSTAVO

On December 13, 2019, the Court granted that request and backdated the effective date of the removal to the date when Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Relief from Judgment in which they represented that they were now representing themselves in pro per. Defendant now opposes Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment. Merits of Motion Plaintiffs move for relief from judgment under C.C.P. § 473(b).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CALHOON VS MEJIA

On September 27, 2019, the court issued an order denying Calhoon’s motion to fax file (construed as a motion for reconsideration or a motion for relief from judgment). On October 24, 2019, Calhoon filed a “Motion to Set Aside Void Judgment” pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d).

  • Hearing

SALAS VS GUSTAVO

On December 13, 2019, the Court granted that request and backdated the effective date of the removal to the date when Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Relief from Judgment in which they represented that they were now representing themselves in pro per. Defendant now opposes Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment. Merits of Motion Plaintiffs move for relief from judgment under C.C.P. § 473(b).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Equitable Relief Defendant argues she is entitled to relief from judgment on equitable grounds. “[U]nder well[-]established law the court may grant relief under its inherent equitable power only if, due to the fraud of the opponent or by his own mistake, the aggrieved party was deprived of a fair adversary hearing and was prevented from presenting his claim or defense, or as the authorities put it, if the fraud or mistake was ‘extrinsic’ [citations].” (De Mello v. Souza (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 79, 85.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SPARBER ANNEN MORRIS & GABRIEL APLC VS HILLSBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC

The Motion for Reconsideration of and Relief from Judgment by Court on Stipulation (to Set Aside) brought by Hillsborough Development Company, LLC (Hillsborough) is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

1 2 3 4 5 6     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.