PATEL et al v. ARVO SOLAR et al
Case Information
Motion(s)
Motion to Set Aside Default
Motion Type Tags
Other
Parties
- Plaintiff: PATEL
- Defendant: ARVO SOLAR
- Defendant: Jason Craine
- Defendant: Golden Gate Electric Service Partnership
- Defendant: Golden Gate Electric Service, Inc.
- Defendant: Joel Rosas Martinez
- Defendant: Roberto Diaz Villanueva
Attorneys
- Howard Garfield — for Plaintiff
Ruling
May 1, 2026 Dept. 9 Tentative Rulings
3. 25CV3075 PATEL et al v. ARVO SOLAR et al Set Aside Default
Motion to Set Aside Default of Jason Craine
Defendant Jason Craine filed this motion requesting the Court to set aside the default entered on February 27, 2026.
Craine was served the Summons and Complaint by mail on December 17, 2025, and he returned a signed Notice of Acknowledgement of Receipt on January 15, 2026. On February 27, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Request for Entry of Default as to Defendant Craine, for a judgment in the amount of $442,702.70.
Craine seeks to set aside the default pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b), for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) provides, in pertinent part:
The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.
Craine was served with the Summons and First Amended Complaint by mail on December 17, 2025, along with a Notice of Acknowledgment of Receipt Form. This manner of service would not have been adequate unless the Notice of Acknowledgment of Receipt form as signed and returned, and so Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Craine on January 15, 2026, “stating the legal consequences of failing to acknowledge service.” Declaration of Howard Garfield, dated April 3, 2026, (“Garfield Declaration”), para. 2 and Exhibit B.
The legal consequences referenced by counsel were that Plaintiff would move for service by publication and request reimbursement of those “significant costs of publication and any additional process server fees” from the Court. Id. Craine signed and returned the form, without being aware that the signature would start the clock running the deadline for filing an Answer in the case. Declaration of Jason Craine, dated March 16, 2026, (“Craine Declaration”), para.
4.
At the time that he signed the form in mid- January, 2026, he understood from the owner of co-Defendant Phillip Horton, owner of co- Defendant Arvo Solar, that that Defendant Arvio Solar’s ’s Answer would also be filed on behalf of Craine. Id. at para.