Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV00076, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00076    Hearing Date: March 22, 2024    Dept: 52

Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment

            On October 3, 2023, the court continued the hearing on this order to show cause re: entry of default judgment.  On January 17, 2024, plaintiff Salvador Lopez, Jr. filed a first amended complaint.  Doing so vacated the defaults of defendants Advance Pipe Bending, a business entity form unknown, and Mitchell McCray.  (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 830; accord Airs Aromatics, LLC v. CBL Data Recovery Technologies, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1013, 1025.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.110(g) provides, “If a responsive pleading is not served within the time limits specified in this rule and no extension of time has been granted, the plaintiff must file a request for entry of default within 10 days after the time for service has elapsed.  The court may issue an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed if the plaintiff fails to timely file the request for the entry of default.” 

Plaintiff filed proofs of service of the first amended complaint on defendants.  Defendants have not filed responsive pleadings within the time limit.  Plaintiff did not timely file a request for entry of their defaults.  The court therefore will order plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. 

Disposition

The court hereby continues the order to show cause re: entry of default judgment to May 17, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. 

The court hereby sets an order to show cause re: why plaintiff should not pay $100 in sanctions under rule 3.110(g) for May 17, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.