What is a Motion to Vacate Default?

The court has broad discretion to vacate the entry of default, default judgment, or dismissal, but that discretion can be exercised only if the defendant establishes a proper ground for relief, by the proper procedure and within the set time limits. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 473(b).)

Legal Standard

“The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 473(b).) This section “is often applied liberally where the party in default moves promptly to seek relief, and the party opposing the motion will not suffer prejudice if relief is granted.” (Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233.)

“The rules pertaining to defaults and default judgments must be precisely followed to ensure that a defaulting defendant is aware of plaintiff’s claims.” (Grappo v. McMills (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 996, 1012.)

A default or default judgment is void if a defendant was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute. (Sakaguchi v. Sakaguchi (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 852, 858; Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544.) “A judgment may be void on the face of the record or void for lack of proper service.” (Yeung v. Soos (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 576, 582.)

Procedure

“Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 473(b).)

“This six-month time limitation is jurisdictional; the court has no power to grant relief under section 473 once the time has lapsed.” (Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 918, 928.) The six-month limitation period for mandatory relief under CCP § 473(b) commences at time a default judgment is rendered, rather than earlier when a default is entered. (Sugasawara v. Newland (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 294.)

“The court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any

  1. resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or
  2. resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.”

(Code of Civ. Proc., § 473(b); English v. IKON Business Solutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.)

“[W]hat must be attested to is the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect—not the reasons for it.” (Martin Potts & Associates, Inc. v. Corsair, LLC (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 432, 438.)

Useful Rulings on Motion to Vacate Default

Recent Rulings on Motion to Vacate Default

1-25 of 10000 results

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction Provided that the City will stipulate to a preliminary injunction with respect to the provisions of Ordinance No. 6374 relating to immediate warrantless access to the short-term rental (STR) units, the Court DENIES the application for a preliminary injunction in all other respects, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY VS. SANTA ANA RV STORAGE, L.P.

With respect to the first question, the Court concludes that Section 13.2(f) does not preclude SARVS from attempting to obtain compensation for any alleged loss of goodwill. Notably, nowhere in that section is there any reference to goodwill or any statement to the effect that any potential item of compensation not explicitly referenced therein is considered waived.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

The motion is MOOT as to Issue 2, which seeks adjudication of the Third Cause of Action, which Plaintiffs dismissed as to Count 1, under the General Contract. [ROA 2604.] The Court’s analysis with respect to Saddleback’s motion directed to the contract claims applies equally to this motion. 4.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

Plaintiff Francisco Velazquez’s Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Kim D. Stephens, Gregory F. Coleman, Paul C. Peel, Jason T. Dennett and Adam A. Edwards The pro hac vice applications of Adam A. Edwards, Gregory Coleman, Jason T. Dennett, Kim D. Stephens, and Paul C. Peel do not address whether the applicants are: (1) regularly employed in the State of California or (2) regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. CRC, Rule 9.40(a)(2) and (3).

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

THE CITIES OF DUARTE VS STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CITY OF GARDENA VS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

CAS004001, as amended on June 16, 2015 by State Board Order WQ 2015-0075, which is remanded to you for reconsideration in light of the Decision of this Court dated April 18, 2019. Nothing herein shall limit or control in any way the discretion legally vested in you. YOU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED to file with this Court a return to this writ on or before (90 plus 30 days as per Respondents’ request) stating what you have done to comply.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

MALIN VS AMBRY GENETICS CORPORATION

Continued to 7-19-2019

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

OSCAR ESCOBEDO, ET AL. VS EMANATE HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER , ET AL.

AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1: This case is hereby transferred and reassigned to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE EAST DISTRICT, JUDGE GLORIA QHITE-BROWN presiding in DEPT. J of the Pomona Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the case for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CATHAY BANK VS ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION

Again, at this point, this does not show a willful act by Defendant JMI to entitle Plaintiffs to punitive damages discovery against it. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

CHANGLIANG DAI VS THOMAS CHEN, ET AL.

On September 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Chen, Tissuesco and Does 1-10 for: Breach of Contract Breach of Fiduciary Duty On October 23, 2019, Chen’s default was entered. On September 1, 2020, Tissuesco’s default was entered. A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for November 2, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff Changliang Dai’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MANUEL ALEJANDRE VS CAL-VILLA ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

The court directs Defendant to prepare the order and submit it to opposing counsel for approval as to content. (Rule 3.1312) The case management conference scheduled for September 25, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 11B will remain. Ross 9/18/2020 ……………… Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling: Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT A. MATTHEWS

A very limited number of people will be allowed in Department J6 at one time to comply with safety protocols. Face coverings (masks, etc.) are required at all times to enter the courthouse and Department J6, and appropriate social distancing in the courtroom and inside the courthouse shall be maintained at all times. You are encouraged to bring your own face covering to Court if you intend to appear in person.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

. § 435.5(b) “[a] party moving to strike a pleading that has been amended after a motion to strike an earlier version of the pleading was granted shall not move to strike any portion of the pleadings on grounds that could have been raised by a motion to strike as to the earlier version of the pleading.” Here, the attorney’s fees request was included in the SAC, but Defendants did not move to strike such request. The Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Request for Attorney’s Fees is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JINGXUAN ZHANG VS HUMMINGBIRD NEST ENTERTAINMENT CORP

On May 9, 2019, the court granted, inter alia, Plaintiff’s ex parte application for amendment to complaint. On August 7, 2019, Ye’s default was entered. An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment is set for October 19, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PNC EQUIPMENT FINANCE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS SANTIAGO MENDOZA MUNIZ, AN INDIVIDUAL

The Judicial Council Form CIV-100 (“Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter default)”) reflects that a court judgment in the amount of $123,186.97 is to be entered against Muniz, Dragon and Zhang. A new proposed judgment clarifying the judgment to be entered against each defendant should be submitted. ANALYSIS Yes (7/8/20; Default Entered.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CHUAN JUN LI VS QI ZHAO

An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment is set for October 16, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The following defects are noted: Plaintiff has failed to dismiss Does 1-10. Plaintiff has failed to provide a summary of the case. Plaintiff has not provided a calculation re interest.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ARMEN G KOJIKIAN ET AL VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

Counsel is to contact the courtroom directly to reserve a hearing date for a new motion for preliminary approval, if such motion is going to be filed. If a new motion for preliminary approval of Class Action Settlement is filed, the motion and supporting papers must be complete and not refer to previously filed papers or exhibits filed in support of prior motions.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

(“Defendant”) and Does 1-25 for: Unlawful Detainer On December 5, 2019, Defendant’s default was entered; that day, a clerk’s default judgment for possession only was filed. A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for October 14, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The court notes that the lease provided for a $69,804.04 security deposit.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

BELINDA AGUILAR, ET AL. VS TG PROPERTIES LLC

Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

ESTATE OF EUGENIA NG

Have a Judicial Council Form Notice of Hearing and copy of petition mailed to all persons entitled to receive notice and file a Proof of Service with court. 4. Proposed Order Notes: 1. Per 7-21-2020 minute order, court ordered Atty. Flood to respond to all petitions. 2. “Omnibus Response, Objection and Opposition to Estate Related Pleadings Filed by Efren Delgadillo” filed by Anthony Francis LoForte, Sr. 7-22-2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N TO DECLARE THE 2007 RESTATEMENT OF TRUST & 2019 INSTRUCTIONS FILED ON 05/26/20 BY RHONDA BRINK

GERARD SMITS MATTHEW B TALBOT HELEN SMITS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE -- See also Lines # 15 and 25 -- Need: 1. Appearances 2. Proof of Publication. PrC § 8120 3. Verified declaration by petitioner to add deceased spouse with date of death to petition Item # 8. LR 7.151(d) 4. Verified declaration by petitioner to include fair market value of estate so court has sufficient facts to fix bond. Item # 3.d. is incomplete. 5.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ESTATE OF KATHERINE L LOFORTE-DELGADILLO

RE: CASE MANAGMENT (CONSOLIDATED CASE) SET BY JUDGE FANNIN ON 9/25/19 DEMURRER ORDER PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances Note: It appears this petition is moot.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ESTATE OF KATHERINE L LOFORTE-DELGADILLO

RE: APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER FILED ON 12/06/19 BY EFREN DELGADILLO JR PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2. Proof of mailing Judicial Council Form Notice of Hearing to all persons entitled to receive notice 3. Proposed Order PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: FIRST AND FNL ACCOUNTING FOR STATUTORY AF AND PERSONAL

Proposed Order Note: Letters Testamentary issued to Atty. Kathryn S. Korn 9-10-2019. JAVIER ROJAS KATHRYN S KORN OLIVER W. BRAY SABRINA GARCIA PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Waivers of Accounting from presumptive contingent remainder beneficiaries of the trust. The Trustee has a fiduciary duty to protect their interests, and cannot use her fiduciary position to relieve herself of the obligation to provide an accounting in this proceeding.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PETITION OF CHUN CHAK BENEDICT CHU

P STARLA PACINI PETER A HASS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: Verified declaration by petitioner to include a copy of estate tax return closing letter EUGENIA NG JUDITH NG HALE KRONEBERG

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ACCOUNTING SET BY D14 ON 1/15/20

PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearance to report status of filing accounting. Laurie Schwarzrock was ordered to complete an accounting by 4-1-2020, and to file an accounting by 4-15-2020. Note: Response to OSC filed by Laurie Schwarzrock 2-11-20 needs verification and signature. PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.