| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion To Vacate Judgment
Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Monday, December 22, 2025, Line 10. Defendant's Motion to Vacate Judgment is denied without prejudice to renew.
Plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of contract on August 26, 2025 alleging that Defendant had failed to pay outstanding bills for legal services. Defendant was personally served with the summons and complaint on September 10, 2025. Plaintiff requested entry of Defendant's default on October 21, 2025.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 473, subd. (b), "[t]he court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect." A motion for relief from default shall be accompanied by a copy of the proposed answer and shall be filed within six months after entry of default. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 979) "Because the law favors disposing of cases on their merits, 'any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default.' " (Id at 980.)
The instant motion appears to be Defendant's attempt to set aside the default under Section 473(b) based on mistake or excusable neglect. Defendant filed the motion within six months of entry of default and attached a proposed answer to his "Motion to Vacate Judgment Addendum No. 1" filed on December 5, 2025. What is missing is evidence of mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. Defendant's moving papers state that Defendant mailed a proposed answer to the complaint to the San Francisco Superior Court clerk's office on or about October 4, 2025, before the default was entered. This explanation is insufficient to establish mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect because it is not in the form of a sworn declaration. Finally, the motion was not served and filed in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure 1005. Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice to renew.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
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?”
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/CM) |