DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CL24-06579·solano·Civil·Contract
Hearing about 2 months agoDENIED

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. vs. DECONTEE T. DOE

Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Under Terms of the Stipulated Settlement

Hearing date
Jun 26, 2026
Department
7
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffBANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
DefendantDECONTEE T. DOE

Ruling

DEPARTMENT SEVEN JUDGE TIM P. KAM 707-207-7307 TENTATIVE RULINGS SCHEDULED FOR FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 2026 The parties may appear via Zoom with the exception of trials, trial management conferences, order for examinations and mandatory settlement conferences. The information for the Zoom meeting is set forth below.

The tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the court unless a party desiring to be heard contacts the judicial assistant of the department hearing the matter by 4:30 p.m. on the court day preceding the hearing, and further advises that such party has notified the other side of its intention to request a hearing. A party requesting a hearing must notify all parties of the request to be heard by 4:30 p.m.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. vs. DECONTEE T. DOE Case No. CL24-06579

Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Under Terms of the Stipulated Settlement

Reflecting due process concerns, service of a motion affecting the rights of a defendant who has not appeared in an action typically is required to be made in the same manner as required for service of summons and complaint. See, e.g., applications for writs of attachment [C.C.P. §482.070(d)], and applications for writs of possession [C.C.P. §512.030(b)].

Defendant filed no responsive pleading in this action.

The only proof of service filed here for the motion papers shows service by mail, on Defendant, at an address at which personal service of summons and complaint had been completed over a year earlier. The Notice of Intention to Request Entry of Judgment was also served by mail, approximately eleven months after personal service of the summons and complaint. No evidence was provided to explain how this could constitute proper service on a defendant who has never appeared in this action.

The motion is denied without prejudice.

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