Defendant Ronald Fort (“Defendant”) moves to vacate a default judgment rendered against him in Texas, on November 29, 2016 (“Texas Judgment”). While not set forth in Defendant’s motion, a sister-state judgment was entered against him in California by this Court on November 2, 2017, in the amount of $11,495.41 (“California Judgment”). Notice of Entry of Sister-State Judgment was served on him via personal service on December 4, 2017. Defendant moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and/or excusable neglect. His points and authorities are sparse and simply set forth that policy favors trial on the merits, that the court has wide discretion, and that Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) is to be liberally construed. Plaintiff attaches his declaration, which includes a statement that Defendant was never served in the Texas action.
Plaintiff Ascentium Capital LLC (“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion on the grounds that Defe
Hearing Date
January 31, 2018
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Defendant Ronald Fort (“Defendant”) moves to vacate a default judgment rendered against him in Texas, on November 29, 2016 (“Texas Judgment”). While not set forth in Defendant’s motion, a sister-state judgment was entered against him in California by this Court on November 2, 2017, in the amount of $11,495.41 (“California Judgment”). Notice of Entry of Sister-State Judgment was served on him via personal service on December 4, 2017. Defendant moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and/or excusable neglect. His points and authorities are sparse and simply set forth that policy favors trial on the merits, that the court has wide discretion, and that Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) is to be liberally construed. Plaintiff attaches his declaration, which includes a statement that Defendant was never served in the Texas action.
Plaintiff Ascentium Capital LLC (“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion on the grounds that Defe