DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CVCV21-0197618·shasta·Civil·Default Judgment Status
Hearing 4 months agoCONTINUED

Johnson, et al. v. Parent, et al.

Review regarding status of default judgment

Hearing date
May 1, 2026
Department
63
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJohnson
DefendantWendy Parent
DefendantMark Parent

Attorneys

Tyler Lalagunafor Defendant

Ruling

CASE NUMBER: CVCV21-0197618 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of default judgment. On February 25, 2025, the Court imposed terminating sanctions against Defendants Wendy and Mark Parent, and counsel Tyler Lalaguna pursuant to an Order to Show Cause. The Answer, by way of Stipulation filed May 17, 2022, was ordered stricken. Default was entered against both Defendants on February 5, 2026. At the review hearing on February 5, 2026, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed the Court that he was in the process of getting discovery from the County and intended to file the default judgment packet the following week.

At the April 3, 2026 review hearing, Counsel stated that he had hoped to get the default judgment packet filed prior to the April 3, 2026 hearing and requested a continuance. The Court again notes that there have been significant delays in seeking default and default judgment. The Complaint in this matter was filed on June 24, 2021. “An action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant.” CCP § 583.310. The five-year statute is quickly approaching.

No Status Report has been filed for today’s hearing. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar. 1

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