ROPERS MAJESKI, PC VS. JAMES HARDWICK, ET AL.

JUNE 15, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 13 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________

02:00 PM 23-CIV-01426 ROPERS MAJESKI, PC VS. JAMES HARDWICK, ET AL. LINE 4

ROPERS MAJESKI, PC ELISE R. VASQUEZ JAMES HARDWICK

PLAINTIFF: ROPERS MAJESKI PC’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Ropers Majeski, PC’s unopposed Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED, as follows:

Code of Civil Procedure Section 473 provides the court authority to relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding. The statute is remedial in nature and is to be construed liberally, with doubt resolved in favor of relief from default. Andres v. Armstrong (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 344, 347.

Here, we are faced with the unusual circumstance of a plaintiff seeking to set aside a default and default judgment that it requested because Defendant filed for bankruptcy prior to entry of default. However, Plaintiff did not receive notice of the bankruptcy, and sought entry of default when the action was stayed. Vasquez Decl., ¶¶ 5-11. An automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) is in effect because of the bankruptcy case. Id. ¶11, Exh. H, Exh. B. Accordingly the judgment in this action is and was void ab initio, and relief from default and default judgment is therefore proper here so that the action can be stayed pending resolution of Defendant’s bankruptcy case.

The Motion is accordingly GRANTED, the September 26, 2024 entry of default and June 25, 2026 default judgment are ordered SET ASIDE and VACATED and the action is STAYED pending resolution of Defendant James Hardwick’s bankruptcy case.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept.11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the California Rules of Court. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be efiled only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.