Onemain Financial, LLC. Et al. v. Mario Melendez Castro

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: 08/05/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 23CV420300 Northeast Securities MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE Co., Ltd v. Que, Xiaolan, Lin et al. Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 1 LINE 2-4 23CV428045 Mahmoud Ascarie DEMURRER & MOTION TO STRIKE v. Great American First Amended Complaint was filed on July 23, 2026; as such, Demurrer Assurance Co. et al. (x 2) and Motion to Strike are Off Calendar

LINE 5 24CV431077 Julianne Mejia MOTION: ADMISSIONS DEEMD ADMITTED & SANCTIONS v. The County of Santa Clara Admissions Deemed Admitted: rendered moot by the filing of answers Sanctions: Good cause appearing, Court grants sanctions for two hours reasonable attorney’s fees.

Defendant to prepare the final proposed order, accompanied by the necessary Form EFS-020, within 7 days of the hearing. LINE 6 25CV456689 Richard Chamberlain MOTION TO COMPEL v. Santa Clara Public Defender’s Office, Withdrawn by Plaintiff July 24, 2026 et. al. LINE 7 25CV457483 Richard Chamberlain MOTION TO COMPEL v. Jason Chamberlain Moot in light of prior ruling on Motion for Summary Judgement LINE 8 25CV457483 Richard Chamberlain MOTION FOR CONTINGENT RESTORATION AND SCHEDULING v. Jason Chamberlain Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 8 LINE 9 25CV459816 Onemain Financial, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION LLC. Et al. v. Mario Melendez Castro Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 9

Calendar line 9 Case Name: Onemail Financial, LLC v. Mario Melendez Castro Case No.: 25CV459816

Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration to Set Aside Default

The Court recognizes that a motion for reconsideration ordinarily requires a showing of new or different facts, circumstances, or law. (CCP § 1008.) The Court also notes that no default judgment has been entered and California law strongly favors resolution of actions on their merits whenever possible.

Defendant disputes the circumstances surrounding substitute service on March 13, 2025 and asserts he did not receive actual notice of the action until by mail on July 25, 2025, at which time he promptly contacted Plaintiff's counsel. Defendant further contends that the descriptions contained in the proof of service do not match the individuals allegedly served and disputes statements regarding his whereabouts at the time of service.

While the Court recognizes Plaintiff’s cited authority and the prima facie validity of service pursuant to CCP 415.20, Defendant’s contentions raise a sufficient question regarding Defendant's actual notice of the action.

The Court finds that setting aside the default at this stage will permit adjudication on the merits and will not result in substantial prejudice to Plaintiff beyond the delay inherent in litigation. By contrast, denial of relief would likely result in disposition of the action without a determination on the merits. Under these circumstances, and in light of the strong policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits, the Court exercises its discretion pursuant to CCP section 473(b) to grant relief from default.

Accordingly,

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. The entry of default entered against Defendant is VACATED. Defendant shall file and serve a responsive pleading within 14 days of service of the notice of entry of this order.

- oo0oo -