Actually, I believe the CA case register is a bit
Post# of 8059
Posted On: 08/10/2013 11:02:01 PM
Actually, I believe the CA case register is a bit misleading and that Geo actually originally brought it's motion to set aside the default shortly after it was entered.
I think when we were all seeing possible motions listed shortly after the default was entered and hoping it was Cotton & Western pursuing a default judgment it was actually Geo filing something,
Also, in CA, the entry of a default is usually a ministerial act by the clerk. The clerk just looks to see if there is proof of service and the response deadline has passed and <> he or she enters the default on the plaintiff's request.
So setting it aside early on in a case is usually based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and/or excusable neglect. This is not a particularly onerous standard, and it doesn't really matter if the defendant has actual notice of the lawsuit. The defendant doesn't have any obligation to respond (and almost none ever do) until they have been served with the summons and complaint or agreed to respond absent service.
Regardless, I hope it all goes well for Cotton & Western!
I think when we were all seeing possible motions listed shortly after the default was entered and hoping it was Cotton & Western pursuing a default judgment it was actually Geo filing something,
Also, in CA, the entry of a default is usually a ministerial act by the clerk. The clerk just looks to see if there is proof of service and the response deadline has passed and <
So setting it aside early on in a case is usually based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and/or excusable neglect. This is not a particularly onerous standard, and it doesn't really matter if the defendant has actual notice of the lawsuit. The defendant doesn't have any obligation to respond (and almost none ever do) until they have been served with the summons and complaint or agreed to respond absent service.
Regardless, I hope it all goes well for Cotton & Western!
(0)
(0)