DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26CV186153·alameda·Civil·Unlawful Detainer
Hearing 13 days agoDENIED

RANDLE vs TAYLOR, et al.

Motion to Vacate Default

Hearing date
Aug 11, 2026
Department
511
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffWalter R. Randle
DefendantJamaal Taylor
DefendantKitshwa A. Genama

Ruling

26CV186153: RANDLE vs TAYLOR, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Default in Department 511

Tentative Ruling - 08/07/2026 Lupe Garcia

The Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default filed by Kitshwa A. Genama on 07/20/2026 is Denied.

NOTICE: All attorneys and unrepresented parties who contest the tentative ruling and request an opportunity to present their arguments at the hearing must notify all other parties of their intention to appear by telephone or in person no later than the day before the hearing, by 4:00 p.m. PT. Parties and attorneys must also formally indicate their objection on eCourt and by sending an email message to the Department 511 clerk at Dept511@alameda.courts.ca.gov. The parties and attorneys must clearly indicate in their email messages the name of the case and the case number. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the Court if the Court has not directed oral argument by its tentative ruling and notice of a party’s intent to appear is not received by the deadline. See California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1) and Alameda County Superior Court Local Rule 3.30(d).

The motion of Defendant Kitshwa Genama to set aside the default and default judgment in favor of Plaintiff Walter R. Randle, entered on June 15, 2026, pursuant to CCP § 473(d), is DENIED.

Plaintiff Walter R. Randle filed his Complaint against Defendants Jamaal Taylor and Genama for unlawful detainer on May 7, 2026. The property is in Oakland. Plaintiff’s claim is based on the allegation that Defendants failed to make their rent payments. On June 15, 2026, Plaintiff’s attorney filed proof of substitute service of the summons on Defendant Genama. The Clerk’s Office granted Plaintiff’s request for entry of default and default judgment on June 15, 2026.

Defendant filed her motion to set aside on July 20, 2026. Defendant contends that she was not properly served with the summons. Defendant’s motion is procedurally invalid because she did not file proof of service of the motion papers on Plaintiff’s attorney. See CCP § 1013a. Defendant was required to file proof of service no later than five court days before the hearing. See Rule of Court 3.1300(c).

The Court will prepare the order. The court clerk will deliver a copy of the order to the parties. Plaintiff Randle shall file and serve the notice of entry of order no later than August 14, 2026.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share