1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

AJ Weberman pro se 318 3rd Avenue #520 New York 10010 Gary Kurtz pro per 20335 Ventura Blvd Suite 200 Woodland Hills, Calif.

Superior Court of California State of California County of Los Angeles Gary Kurtz, Plaintiff, vs. A. J. Weberman, Defendant ) CASE NO.: LC084486 ) ) MOTION TO VACATE THE ) DEFAULT JUDGMENT ) ) ) ) ) )

Hearing on this motion scheduled March 16, 2010 at 8:30 AM in Dept NW I at 6230 Sylmar Ave, Van Nuys, CA.
1. Now Comes the Defendant, A. J. Weberman, and prays that his court overturn the Summary Judgment of 1.5 million dollars against him. 2. A case of the magnitude and nature should NOT be resolved on the basis of the fact that I was late with a motion. I had mailed in a Motion to Quash on the Basis of Jurisdiction within the time I had to answer the complaint but the Motion was rejected as it lacked a hearing date.

3. I should be given some leeway as a pro se defendant. It is not as if I have not interacted with courts and was ignoring it. I have attended every hearing telephonically and have filed Motions in this case. This matter should be resolved on the basis of the facts not a technicality even if it means trying the case in California, it is better than not trying it at all and letting the case be resolved on the basis of a procedural technicality
[Summary of pleading] - 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

involving my re-mailing a motion in a matter of ONE DAY and you receiving it THREE DAYS LATE. 4. This was an ex-parte summary judgment that defendant had been made aware of one day prior to it taking place. SEE ATTACHMENT A Defendant asks the court to set aside Default Judgment as it was not caused by avoidance or inexcusable neglect. Defendant did not leave willfully avoid service nor did defendant show inexcusable neglect. Defendant merely erred up when it came to the time to respond thinking he had already responded. If this hearing were not ex-parte Defendant would have explained to Judge Kaddo his error and asked for a few more days to answer the complaint.

POINT OF LAWS California Code Of Civil Procedure Section 473.5 c) Upon a finding by the court that the motion was made within the period permitted by subdivision (a) and that his or her lack of actual notice in time to defend the action was not caused by his or her avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect, it may set aside the default or default judgment on whatever terms as may be just and allow the party to defend the action. See ATTACHMENT B

California Code Of Civil Procedure Section 473 (a) (1) The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code. Declaration Defendant AJ Weberman had already answered but had not set a hearing date on the motion. When he called Judge Kaddo’s court clerk he was told that his first motion was never received then told that he had forgotten to set a hearing date. Instead of throwing
[Summary of pleading] - 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants first motion in the trash clerk could have sent him a form as in Attachment C. AJ Weberman pro se Dated this February 3, 2010 ________________________ AJ Weberman pro se 318 3rd Avenue #520 New York 10010 Gary Kurtz pro per 20335 Ventura Blvd Woodland Hills, CA

[Summary of pleading] - 3

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful