Trial setting
15
MORGANFIELD VS. SILVERSTEIN, MD, ET AL. CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0207462 This matter is on calendar for trial setting. The Court designates th is matter as a plan II case and intends to set the matter for trial no later than October 6, 2026. Plain tiff has posted jury fees but Defendants have not. Defendants are granted 10 days leave to post j ury fees. A failure to post jury fees in that time will be deemed a waiver of the right to a j ury. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with available trial dates.
MUNNERLYN, ET AL. VS. MARTIN, ET AL. CASE NUMBER: 24CV-0205402 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of Mr. Martin’s request to set aside default. No motion has been filed. Additionally, the Court is in receipt of multi ple JUD-100s and the procedural history is summarized below.
On September 30, 2025, Plaintiffs Timothy and Kellie Munnerlyn obtained entr y of default on their complaint (filed July 1, 2024) against Defendant Jonathan Martin only.
On May 29, 2026, Plaintiffs submitted a proposed order for default judgment, usin g Judicial Council form JUD-100. In the proposed default judgment, Plaintiffs seek mone tary damages in the amount of $41,253.85. The Court declined to execute the proposed judgment pending the outcome of the pending trial as to the other defendant Ms. Holley.
On June 23, 2026, Plaintiffs Timothy and Kellie Munnerlyn appeared for trial. Ms. Holley and Mr. Martin appeared. Mr. Martin indicated he had not been served and did not know he was in default. The Court continued his case until August 3, 2026 so he could attempt to set aside his default. No motion has been filed.
Upon further review of the file, it appears Mr. Martin was served the Summons and Complaint by Substitute Service on August 5, 2024 and was personally served a Stateme nt of Damages on July 9, 2025.
The trial proceeded and Ms. Holley left the courtroom to contact her witnesses. She never returned and the trial proceeded in her absence. The Court found for the plaintiffs in t he amount of $41,253.85 and ordered them to submit a judgment consistent with the outcome of the trial.
On June 29, 2026, the Plaintiffs Timothy and Kellie Munnerlyn filed a Judicial Council form JUD- 100 as to Ms. Holley only.
The general rule is that there can be only one final judgment in an a ction. (Bank of America v. Superior Court (1942) 20 Cal.2d 697, 701
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?”