Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV02762, Date: 2023-05-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02762    Hearing Date: May 10, 2023    Dept: R

The court is in receipt of the ex parte application to set aside the judgment.  The court, having reviewed the papers, finds them unpersuasive and finds defendant to be not credible.  The trial was held and held properly.  Defendant elected not to proceed with the trial but instead to file a false statement with the court indicating that the matter had been removed to federal court earlier that day, thereby divesting the court of jurisdiction.  The statement was false.  The matter was never removed.  Defendant blames the court for the problem, contending (perhaps rightly) that the court should not have taken her at her word but should have done an independent investigation.  That much is so.  Had the court conducted an investigation in the following days, it would have learned that the matter had never been removed.  But the fault lies primarily with defendant, who elected to lie, not with the court, which believed her.  In any event, the matter was eventually cleared up and the judgment entered.  There is no infirmity in the judgment.

Defendant complains that she has been deprived of the right to be heard.  She is wrong.  She had the right to be heard; the court held a trial upon due notice.  Defendant elected not to appear, but that was her choice.

The ex parte application is DENIED.