Legal Opinion

SRO Housing v. Dyce

Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California

Decided January 22, 2014No. BV030540Published

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KEOSIAN, J.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant James Dyce appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1179,1 contending that the trial court erred in refusing to consider the merits of his motion due to the existence of a default judgment entered against him. We find defendant’s contention to be meritorious and therefore reverse.

BACKGROUND

On March 26, 2013, plaintiff SRO Housing filed an unlawful detainer complaint against defendant alleging that defendant failed to pay the rent from November 2012 through March 2013 for the rental of the premises…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Buck v. MorrossisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  2. Caverly v. GrayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  3. Shupe v. EvansCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  4. Gill Petrolium, Inc. v. HayerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API