What is a Motion to Vacate Judgment?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Vacate Judgment

Recent Rulings on Motion to Vacate Judgment

1301 GLADSTONE STREET INVESTORS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ET, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Legal Standard Relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 is either discretionary or mandatory. A motion for mandatory relief “must be made no more than six months after entry of judgment” and be “accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) The attorney affidavit of fault must contain a “straightforward admission of fault.” (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

OSCAR SALGUERO VS MILESTONE TRUCK SALES, INC., ET AL.

Set Aside Dismissal Plaintiff Oscar Salguero moves to set aside dismissal of the instant matter pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, Section 473(b), on grounds of the mistake of counsel. “[W]henever 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,” relief from dismissal for the attorney’s client is mandatory. (CCP § 473(b).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

NASSER SEDAGHAT VS TARZANA HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER

David Sedaghat moves this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 663(a) “to set aside and vacate the order of dismissal entered on October 16 [sic] 2020 and enter a different ruling.” (Motion to Vacate Dismissal, p. 1:22-24.) Plaintiff S. David Sedaghat asserts that “the basis for this motion is the legal basis for the decision is not consistent with and supported by the facts.” (Id. at p. 1:24-25.) Plaintiff S.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JUAN MACIAS VS YADIRA LARA, ET AL.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(c)(1) permits a court to impose a penalty of no greater than $1,000 upon an offending party or grant other relief as is appropriate. Plaintiff requests $7,000 for attorneys’ fees incurred in opposing this Motion. The Court finds this excessive and denies this request. The Court also declines to impose any penalty upon Defendant. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

JOANNE SOSSMAN VS ALTAMED HEALTH SERVICES CORP, A CORPORATE ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN

Legal Standard Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) provides, in relevant part: 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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TYCO VS. CENTURY FURNITURE

More importantly, the Defendant’s most recent motion to vacate was filed well beyond the six month deadline set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) for such motions. That time limit is jurisdictional and leaves the court without power to grant the motion beyond the allotted six months. See Solot v. Lynch (1956) 46 Cal.2d 99, 105-06.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ERAZMO CRUZ, ET AL. VS DND PORTFOLIO, LLC, ET AL.

DISCUSSION Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “[t]he court may . . . in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading . . . .” The court may, in furtherance of justice, allow the amendment of any pleading at any time before or after commencement of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.) “[T]he court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SCHLOMO SCHMUEL VS. CASPAR MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC

On August 4, 2020, Caspar filed this motion for leave to amend its answer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a)(1) in order to plead offset as an additional affirmative defense. Caspar filed an amendment to its request on September 24, 2020 moving to plead the statute of frauds as an affirmative defense as well. // II. LEGAL STANDARD & DISCUSSION A.

  • Hearing

PEGGYE MARTIN ET AL VS IBIERE SECK ET AL

Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the court’s award and for relief under Code of Civil Procedure, section 473. This matter came to hearing on November 1, 2018, at which time the court denied reconsideration of its ruling. On January 30, 2019, the court granted Petitioners relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), relieving Petitioner Martin of the judgment taken against her and confirming the arbitration award.

  • Hearing

CARDIOVASCULAR CONSULTANTS HEART CENTER, INC. V. JAVED

Explanation: Code of Civil Procedure section 473 authorizes the trial court, in its discretion, to allow amendments in furtherance of justice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473; Cherrigan v. City etc. of San Francisco (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 643, 653.) Where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party, “courts are bound to apply a policy of liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial.” (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761; Higgins v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

OWEN TRADE COMPANY, LTD. VS DURA BELL CERAMICS, INC., ET AL.

Legal Standard Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) provides for two distinct types of relief—commonly differentiated as “discretionary” and “mandatory”—from certain prior actions or proceedings in the trial court. Luri v. Greenwald, 107 Cal. App. 4th 1119, 1124 (2003). Defendants bring this motion under the discretionary provision of section 473(b).

  • Hearing

P O VS LOS ANGELES ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

The Court may vacate orders to correct clerical mistakes on its own motion pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d). The Court had erroneously ruled on Defendants’ demurrer as to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint at the October 6, 2020 hearing on Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s initial complaint. The Court VACATES the October 6, 2020 order sustaining Defendants’ demurrer. Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s initial complaint is OVERRULED as MOOT. (See JKC3H8 v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA V. AMERICAN SURETY CO.

On September 21, 2020, American Surety Company filed a Motion to Set Aside Summary Judgment on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter a summary judgment or alternatively, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473. The motion was initially heard on October 20, 2020, and continued to November 17, 2020 for the court’s consideration of the “supplemental memorandum filed October 7, 2020. Another supplemental points and authorities was filed on November 3, 2020.

  • Hearing

BAYO AKINFEMI, AN INDIVIDUAL VS GREGORY BROUGHTON, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, subdivision (b) contains two distinct provisions for relief from default. The first provision is discretionary and broad in scope, providing: “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.

  • Hearing

REYMOND K OHANIAN VS GREGORY W WALKER

Ohanian’s Motion to Vacate Judgment is DENIED. Defendant to give notice. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL — INADEQUATE DAMAGES Ohanian moves for an amended judgment or new trial on the issue of inadequate damages, on the grounds that the judgment entered pursuant to the parties section 998 agreement contains no provision for prejudgment interest, to which Ohanian contends he is entitled under Civil Code §§ 3287 and 3291. (Motion at pp. 3–4.)

  • Hearing

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION VS THE RELIANT PROPERTY GROUP, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

On September 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to amend judgment, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d), or in the alternative, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). ANALYSIS: I. Motion to Amend Judgment A.

  • Hearing

BREWER VS MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF SEPT 14 2020/ALLOW LEAVE TO FILE AN OPPO BY PAMELA BREWER

The moving party has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, and the Court will set aside the judgment and its order granting summary judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). Plaintiff mistakenly believed that while the Riverside Superior Court was closed, or not accepting filings, the Court continued the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Vistana and Starwood.

  • Hearing

UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY VS LIZBETH S. PEREZ

Therefore, the request for relief is appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d). Conclusion Defendant Lizbeth S. Perez’s Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 473, SUBDIVISION (D). Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LYLE HOWRY VS REGINALD MYLABATHULA BENJAMIN, ET AL.

Here, Plaintiff submits as evidence of his claims: (1) his claim and order to go to small claims court in case number 18VESC05606; (2) the Notice of Motion to Vacate Judgment in 18VESC05606; (3) the Court’s minute order denying Defendants’ Motion to Vacate Judgment in 18VESC05606; (4) the July 16, 2019 settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants; (3) Reginald’s Facebook post; (5) an email from Defendants; (6) an email from Defendants to Plaintiff’s friend; (7) the RipoffReport.com posts; (8) a picture

  • Hearing

SHARON A. SPERLING VS PAUL SPERLING, JR.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) provides, in relevant part: 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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TOWNER VS. COUNTY OF VENTURA

Tentative ruling for November 13, 2020 on Plaintiff Towner's motion to vacate or stay judgments entered in favor of Michael Schwartz and Gregory Totten The court denies Plaintiff Towner's motion to vacate judgment and the corresponding notice of entry of judgment in favor of defendants Gregory Totten and Michael Schwartz. There is a statutory stay of enforcement in effect pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 916. Counsel for Mr. Totten and Mr.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FELIX AJEGBO, CO-TRUSTEES, JUDGMENT CREDITORS ADMINISTRATORS, BENEFICIARIES VS DR. DAVID Y. LEE, MD, ET AL.

A request for relief under California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 473(b) must be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein. (Id.) A trial on the merits is favored and courts liberally construe section 473. (Bonzer v. City of Huntington Park (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1477.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

MOORE VS. CONSUMER DEBT SOLUTIONS LAW GROUP

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; ….” The court may properly permit an amendment where it merely corrects a misnomer and does not change the nature of the claim. (Cuadros v.

  • Hearing

FLORES VS JANSON & ASSOCIATES GLOBAL CONSULTING LLC

Pacific Equity's motion is explicitly founded on the discretionary provision in Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), which states as follows: "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."

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

FLORES VS JANSON & ASSOCIATES GLOBAL CONSULTING LLC

Pacific Equity's motion is explicitly founded on the discretionary provision in Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), which states as follows: "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."

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 140     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.