DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
22-01281126·orange·Civil·Employment
Hearing about 2 months agoCONTINUED

Neri Bahena vs. Gregory’s Pallet Inc.

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Hearing date
Jun 30, 2026
Department
C25
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Sep 15, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Sanctions rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffNeri Bahena
DefendantGregory’s Pallet Inc.

Ruling

complaint to attorney did not constitute actual notice, nor should the inexcusable neglect of attorney in failing to communicate with party about the filing of the litigation be imputed on party].) Thus, relief is also available under Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to set aside and vacate entry of default and default judgment under Code of Civil Procedure sections 473(d) and 473.5. The default entered on January 30, 2026, and the default judgment entered on March 16, 2026, are set aside and vacated.

Defendant to file and serve their proposed Answer within 10 days.

In light of the foregoing, the Court declines to address Defendant’s additional arguments that the entry of default and default judgment should be set aside and vacated under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), or based on equitable relief.

Defendant to give notice

107 Neri Bahena vs.

1. Motion for Terminating Sanctions Gregory's Pallet Inc. In light of Plaintiff’s pending motion for 22-01281126 reconsideration of this Court’s April 14, 2026, ruling on demurrer, the Motion for Terminating Sanctions is CONTINUED to 09/15/2026 at 10:00 a.m. in Department C25.

Moving party to give notice.

2. Case Management Conference continued to 09/15/2026 at 10:00 AM

Clerk to give notice.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share