MARTINSON VS TURO INC

1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CVPS2501875 MARTINSON VS TURO INC MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Kenneth Martinson’s motion to vacate judgment is DENIED. The motion does not comply with the notice and service requirements of CCP 1005. Plaintiff also has not shown his failure to appear at the 3/18/2026 hearing on defendant Turo, Inc.’s attorney fee motion was the result of excusable neglect. (CCP 473(b); see, e.g., Huh v. Wang (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1424 [attorney calendaring error does not warrant discretionary relief]; Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543 [self-represented litigants held to the same standards as attorneys].)

Even if he had, plaintiff has not shown his neglect led to the court’s attorney fee award. (See Todd v. Thrifty Corp. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 986, 991 [CCP 473(b) relief unavailable where mistake or neglect does not “actually cause” result complained of].) Plaintiff seeks relief to present oral argument on defendant’s fee motion. But entertaining oral argument on a non-evidentiary motion is within a court’s discretion; it is not a party’s right. (Wilburn v. Oakland Hospital (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1107, 1111; see CRC 3.1306 [requesting oral argument on noticed motions].)

Here, the court thoroughly reviewed and considered plaintiff’s 3/11/2026 opposition to defendant’s motion. While it disagreed with some of that opposition (much of which had been decided previously), it agreed that defendant’s fee request was excessive and awarded it less than half of the $20,655 sought. Plaintiff was thus afforded all the procedural rights due to him. (Wilburn, at p. 1111.)

2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT, QUASH SERVICE OF JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, CVPS2505154 SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT FOR N.A. VS MORRIS COLLECTIONS OF JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. BY JADA MORRIS Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling. The court will hold a hearing on defendant Jada Morris’s motion to quash service of summons.