Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment
California Code of Civil Procedure § 683.170(a), states “The renewal of a judgment pursuant to this article may be vacated on any ground that would be a defense to an action on the judgment, including the ground that the amount of the renewed judgment as entered pursuant to this article is incorrect, and shall be vacated if the application for renewal was filed within five years from the time the judgment was previously renewed under this article.” California Code of Civil Procedure §683.160(a) states, “The judgment creditor shall serve a notice of renewal of the judgment on the judgment debtor.
Service shall be made personally or by first-class mail and proof of service shall be filed with the court clerk. The notice shall be in a form prescribed by the Judicial Council and shall inform the judgment debtor that the judgment debtor has 60 days within which to make a motion to vacate or modify the renewal.”
The original address of the premises subject to the unlawful detainer proceedings was 6401 Warner Ave. #525, Huntington Beach, CA 92647, based on the Writ of Possession (ROA 22), which was filed on 9/30/2015. The Writ that was issued in July of 2018 as to the Defendants at an address of 7701 Warner Ave. Apt. L174, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 (ROA 32). The Proof of Service by Mail (ROA 41) serves both Defendants at 6200 Edinger Ave., Apt. 832, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 on 1/7/2026 with the “Notice of Renewal of Judgment, Application for Renewal of Judgment”, although the Application for and Renewal of Judgment (ROA 35) was filed with the Court on 10/7/2025. ROA 42 shows two different addresses for service, including 7281 La Mancha Cir, Apt. C, Huntington Beach, CA 92647, signed 2/6/2026, less than a month from the Proof of Service by Mail (ROA 41).
Defendant Anna Grabowska provided documentation that she has resided at the same location, 7281 La Mancha Circle Apt. C, Huntington Beach, CA 92648, since June 2020. Plaintiff failed to timely serve on the Defendant the Application for Renewal of Judgment at the correct address for the Defendant. Additionally, there is no evidence lodged with the Court showing that the Plaintiff complied with the requirement to notify the judgment debtor that the judgment debtor has 60 days within which to move to vacate or modify the renewal.
The Court VACATES the Renewal of Judgment and QUASHES the Writ of Execution issued on 4/22/2026.
The Court Clerk is to notify the Orange County Sheriff’s Department that the Writ of Execution issued on 4/22/2026 is QUASHED.
The Court Clerk is to provide notice of the Court’s ruling. 15 30-2026-01555485 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Phan vs. Lu Default Judgment (ROA 34) and Supplement Declaration and Supplemental Exhibits in Support of Motion (ROA 41).
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The Court SETS ASIDE the default judgment entered on 5/18/2026. The Court finds the Defendant met its burden under California Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b).
The Court QUASHES the Writ of Possession and CANCELS the lockout.
The Court Clerk is to notify the Orange County Sheriff’s Department that the Writ of Possession is Quashed and the Lockout canceled.
The Defendant is ordered to file an Answer today (6/12/26) no later than 4 PM at the Clerk’s office.
The Court Clerk is to notify the parties of the Court’s ruling.
16 30-2026-0156393 The Court has read and considered the Defendants’ Demurrer to the Park II Spectrum LLC Complaint (ROA 24), the Complaint (ROA 2) and the Plaintiff’s Opposition vs. Chen (ROA 28).
The Court OVERRULES the Demurrer.
The Defendants are ordered to file an Answer within 5 calendar days.
The Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling. 17 30-2026-01564943 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Demurrer to the Hu vs. Holmes Complaint (ROA 15), the Complaint (ROA 2), and the Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 20).
The Court OVERRULES the Demurrer.
The Defendant is ordered to file an Answer within 5 business days.
The Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling.
19 30-2026-01564523 The Court has read and considered the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Cooper Fellowship, Judgment/Adjudication (ROA 31), Request for Judicial Notice (ROA 28), Inc. vs. Gideon Declaration of Rick Bonner in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (ROA 32), and Plaintiff’s Reply to Opposition (ROA 50).
Based on the Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Opposition, the Court assumes an Opposition was at least served on the Plaintiff. No such Opposition has been filed with the Court. Given the issue – the Court will address this matter at the hearing on 6/12/2026.
20 30-2026-01570045 The Court has read and considered the Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service The Irvine Company of Summons (ROA 15). LLC vs. HafezKhorram The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Proof of Service of Summons (ROA 8, 12, & 14) and the Proof of Service of Summons & Complaint – Unnamed Occupants (ROA 10).
Service was effectively implemented by a registered process server, Yesica Romero Hernandez (PS-002415). Akhtar HafezKhorram and Shahram Mohebbi were served by substitute service on May 24, 2026, at 1:18 PM by the registered process server providing the Summons and other documents to