Hitt v. Hitt

9. Hitt v. Hitt, Case No. CIVSB2308875 Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant 8/27/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

The Court would GRANT this unopposed motion by Krosenberger Rosenfeld, LLP, to be relieved as counsel for Defendant.

Here, the Krosenberger firm seeks to be relieved as counsel for Defendant. The motion is supported by a declaration establishing good cause pursuant to rule 1.16(b) of the Rules of Court. The Court is inclined to GRANT this unopposed motion. Relief is not final until the ruling is served on Plaintiff and a filed proof of service demonstrating that service.

Defendant Hitt is ordered to appear at the next hearing. The Court will inquire regarding her plans regarding representation and defense of this case.

*** *** ***

10. Wiggan v. Bryan, et al, Case No. CIVSB2431607 Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment 8/27/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

The Court is inclined to DENY. The motion is not timely under the mandatory provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) nor is it accompanied by the required proposed answer or an attorney affidavit.

Relief under section 473(b), may be based either on: (1) an “attorney affidavit of fault,” in which event, relief is mandatory; or (2) declarations or other evidence showing “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect,” in which event relief is discretionary. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b); Minick v. City of Petaluma (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 15, 25-26.) A trial court has broad discretion to vacate a default judgment, default, or order; however, said discretion can only be exercised if the moving party establishes a proper ground for relief, by proper procedure, and within certain time limits. (Cruz v. Fagor America Inc. (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 488, 495.)

Relevant here, an application for relief from default under the mandatory provision of section 473(b), must be made “no more than six months after entry of judgment.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).) The default was entered on February 10, 2025, and the interlocutory judgment was entered on July 24, 2025. Defendant filed his motion on June 4, 2026. Therefore, it is untimely.

Even in the alternative, the motion was not accompanied by a proposed answer, and there is no attorney affidavit in support of the motion. Defendant does not explain why he waited until June 4, 2026, to file his motion, which was ten months after he signed the agreement acknowledging that Gomez Law no longer represented him; thirteen months after he was present in court and informed that default was entered against him; and sixteen months after default was entered.

*** *** ***

2