TENTATIVE RULING
MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Calendar: 11
Date: 1/13/17
Case No: EC 063034
Case Name: Huynh v. Ha
Moving Party: Defendants Thai Ha and Phuong Ha
Responding Party: Plaintiff Bieu Huynh
RULING;
Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Entry of Judgment of Default is DENIED.
The court finds that relief is not available under CCP § 473.5, as there is no argument that a valid method of service failed to give defendants notice in time to defend against the action, and that, in any case, defendants argue that they became aware of this judgment in January of 2016, but did not bring this motion until October of 2016, and have failed to offer a satisfactory showing that they were diligent and brought this motion within a “reasonable time,” as required under the statute.
In addition, to the extent the argument is that the defendants were not served at all with the summons and complaint, the court finds that the proofs of service are signed by a
Hearing Date
January 13, 2017
Type
Breach Rental/Lease (not UD/Evict) (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Default Judgment per Declaration 03/20/2015
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
TENTATIVE RULING
MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Calendar: 11
Date: 1/13/17
Case No: EC 063034
Case Name: Huynh v. Ha
Moving Party: Defendants Thai Ha and Phuong Ha
Responding Party: Plaintiff Bieu Huynh
RULING;
Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Entry of Judgment of Default is DENIED.
The court finds that relief is not available under CCP § 473.5, as there is no argument that a valid method of service failed to give defendants notice in time to defend against the action, and that, in any case, defendants argue that they became aware of this judgment in January of 2016, but did not bring this motion until October of 2016, and have failed to offer a satisfactory showing that they were diligent and brought this motion within a “reasonable time,” as required under the statute.
In addition, to the extent the argument is that the defendants were not served at all with the summons and complaint, the court finds that the proofs of service are signed by a