Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.a. v. Sukhjeev Singh

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230

DATE: 07/01/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 22CV406880 Sriadhibhatla Chainulu Motion to Set Aside Default/Judgment vs Ajit Sanzgiri et al Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 1 LINE 2 24CV428712 Belen Ibanez Motion to Compel vs Javier Ibanez et al Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 3 LINE 3 24CV444998 City of San Jose, a Petition for Adjudication and Approval of Option Agreement by Receiver charter city vs Kim Ho et al. Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 3 LINE 4 25CV472064 Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Motion to Set Aside Default/Judgment N.a. vs Sukhjeev Singh Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 4 LINES 5 - 25CV476569 Greg Gianotti Demurrer & Motion to Strike vs 6 Salacup Nardito et al.

Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 5 LINE 7 25CV479084 Sandeep Pal vs Denodo Petition Compel Arbitration Technologies Inc. Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 7 LINE 8 25CV47984 Pedram Bigdeli et al. Hearing: Petition Compel Arbitration vs Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 8

- oo0oo -

Calendar line 4 Case Name: JPMorgan Chae Bank, N.A. vs Sukhjeev Singh Case No.: 25CV472064

Defendant moves to set aside the default entered 9/30/25 and the default judgment entered 2/20/26, asserting he was not personally served and, alternatively, that he believed the matter could be resolved informally and did not understand he was required to file a written response within 30 days. He further states he acted promptly once he learned of the default and seeks to litigate the matter on the merits. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

The record reflects a proof of personal service on 8/12/25, which includes a physical description of the person served. Default was entered on 9/30/25. Defendant filed this motion on 12/18/25, before entry of the default judgment on 2/20/26, along with a proposed answer.

Relief is sought under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5, and Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d).

The court notes the proof of service is facially valid and constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service. Defendant’s denial of service is not persuasive on this record, and the court does not make a finding that service did not occur. However, the court also does not resolve that factual dispute conclusively at this stage.

Critically, Defendant filed this motion while the case was still in default status and before entry of default judgment. The judgment was entered while the motion was pending. This procedural posture is significant: the court is not being asked to disturb a long-final judgment entered in reliance on finality interests, but rather to resolve a timely request for relief that was already under submission when the judgment was signed. In that setting, the equities weigh differently, and the preference for resolution on the merits carries greater force.

As to excusable neglect, Defendant’s explanation that he believed the matter could be resolved informally and did not understand the need to file a responsive pleading within 30 days is not, standing alone, a strong showing under section 473(b). However, Defendant acted promptly upon learning of the default, has now appeared, and has submitted a proposed answer demonstrating an intent to litigate the case on the merits.

Although Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, the court does not rely on silence alone. Instead, the court considers the full procedural posture: a timely motion filed before entry of judgment, a relatively prompt appearance by Defendant, and the strong policy favoring adjudication on the merits where reasonably possible.

Balancing these considerations, the court exercises its discretion to grant relief.

The motion is GRANTED. The default entered 9/30/25 and the default judgment entered 2/20/26 are vacated. Defendant’s proposed answer is deemed filed as of the date of this order.

Nothing in this ruling should be construed as a finding that Defendant was not served. The proof of service remains facially valid and constitutes prima facie evidence of service. The ruling is based on the procedural posture of the case and the court’s discretionary authority to permit resolution on the merits.

Case will be scheduled for Further Case Management Conference on Wednesday November 25, 2026 at 10:00 in Department 12.

The Defendant to prepare the final order, accompanied by the necessary EFS-020 Form within 7 days of the hearing.

- oo0oo –