| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment
The Court grants Plaintiff Shahla Popal’s Motion to vacate the 1/23/26 Judgment and 12/23/25 summary judgment Order on Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendants Ali Sajjadian, M.D., and Sajjadian Medical Corporation. The Court re-sets the hearing for summary judgment to take place on 8-3-26 at 1:30 p.m. The Court will consider the 12/16/25 corrected declaration of Andre Aboolian, M.D., F.A.C.S. No further filings are permitted by either side.
The Court also sets a trial setting conference for the same date and time.
Merits A CCP § 473(b) consists of “a discretionary provision, which applies permissively, and a mandatory provision, which applies as of right.” (Minick v. City of Petaluma (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 15, 25-26; Bailey v. Citibank, N.A. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 335, 348.)
Here, the Court finds sufficient facts have been shown to warrant the relief requested based on these circumstances analogous to a default. The Court granted summary judgment on the grounds that Defendants met their moving burden and Plaintiff did not present expert evidence to controvert Defendants’ expert testimony. (Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601, 607 [citing Munro v. Regents of University of California (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 984-985].) The Court did not consider Plaintiff’s expert declaration at all.
A recent Court of Appeal case confirms that it is an abuse of discretion to refuse to consider an opposing declaration inadvertently filed without verification, when the defect has been cured prior to entry of the order. (Walton v. Victor Valley Community College District (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 1164
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?”
Here, at the hearing, the Court pointed out the defect and took the matter under submission. The next morning after the hearing Plaintiff filed the corrected declaration, but the Order on the Motion was entered without consideration of the corrected declaration.
Thus, Plaintiff should have been given an opportunity to cure such a defect so the matter may be resolved on the merits. The court, instead, relied on its duty to consider only admissible evidence. Walton makes clear that the Plaintiff had a right to “cure the defect”.
Defendants did not raise this objection themselves. The defect was identified sua sponte by the Court, at the hearing. Finally, the Court finds no prejudice to Defendants.
The Motion is granted.
Plaintiff to give notice.