What is a Motion for Relief from Judgment?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Relief from Judgment

Recent Rulings on Motion for Relief from Judgment

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

    Sep 01, 2020

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

    Aug 13, 2020

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

    Jul 21, 2020

  • 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

    Jul 17, 2020

  • 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

    Jul 07, 2020

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

    Mar 12, 2020

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

    Mar 05, 2020

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

    Mar 04, 2020

  • 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

    Feb 21, 2020

  • 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

    Feb 13, 2020

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

    Jan 24, 2020

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

    Jan 23, 2020

  • 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

    Jan 21, 2020

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

    Jan 16, 2020

  • 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

    Jan 14, 2020

  • 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

    Jan 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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

    Dec 13, 2019

SALAS VS GUSTAVO

Those concerns are completely assuaged here because, about three days before the present Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel was filed, the clients themselves, plaintiffs Mauro Ortiz and Soledad Gaytan, filed their own Motion for Relief from Judgment purporting to represent themselves in pro per. (ROA 80.) In that document, they also provide an address of record: 516 Blue Jay Ct, Oceanside, CA, 92058.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DOUGLAS BIAN VS DANIEL HAO-HSTANG WANG, ET AL.

., § 473, and the court's equitable power for relief from judgment on the ground that her former husband's lawyer had represented her without her knowledge and consent, and the trial court set aside the judgment as to her. The lessor appealed. While the trial court’s ruling was based on a number of grounds and flaws, one of the grounds was the failure to properly serve the wife with the summons and complaint in the first instance. There are some similarities between Zirbes and this case.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

RUMION VS. RUMION

Here, were it appropriate to hold that any time a party is not given actual notice, a default and/or judgment is rendered void and subject to a set aside under Code of Civil Procedure § 473(d), another statute – namely Code of Civil Procedure § 473.5, which is entitled "Relief from judgment where summons does not result in actual notice" – would be rendered superfluous as all relief that could be obtained under Code of Civil Procedure § 473.5 could also be obtained under Code of Civil Procedure § 473(d).

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

NETWORK COMMERCIAL SERVICE INC VS AMIR MOGHADDAM ET AL

SUBJECT: Motion for Relief from Judgment Post-Trial Moving Party: Defendants Amir Moghaddam, Helena Rostami, AM Solution to Investment, LLC Resp. Party: Plaintiff Network Commercial Service, Inc. Defendant’s motion for relief from judgment post-trial by vacating the January 2, 2019 judgment is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2019

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

NOTRE DAME VS. QUINTANILLA

Defendant filed this motion on April 10, 2019 which is well beyond the two year period for relief from judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5.

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2019

3250 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD PARTNERS VS JOHN LEE

Judgment Debtor Min’s motion to vacate renewal of the judgment or for equitable relief from judgment and dismiss the case against Andrew Min is DENIED. Judgment Debtor Andrew Min moves to vacate the original, 2010, and 2018 renewal of judgment; or to set aside the original void judgment under the court’s equitable powers for extrinsic mistake. Min contends he was never served with the notice, original complaint, or summons. He originally leased office space in “Suite 1005” with John Lee for four months.

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2019

CHANHT REATREY KEO VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, ET AL

Courts have discretion to grant a party’s request for relief from judgment, dismissal, order or other proceeding taken against a party upon a showing of mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Leader v. Health Industries, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App. 4‘h 603, 615-616; Code ofCiv. Proc. Section 473(b).) However in this matter, the court finds that plaintiff failed to establish mistake, inadvertence, surprise of excusable neglect.

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2019

RAHBARNIA VS. TERTZAKIAN

Motion for Relief from Judgment filed by Jamal Rahbarnia NO TENTATIVE 2. Status Conference

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2019

1 2 3 4 5     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.