Does the trial court erred by vacating the default when it vacated the default?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Dep't of Fair Emp't & Hous. v. Ottovich, A136607 (Cal. App. 2014):
Ottovich argues in the alternative that the trial court erred by failing to reinstate the answer when it vacated the default. He argues, relying on Matera v. McLeod (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 44 (Matera) that vacating the default without reinstating the answer failed to provide meaningful relief. We conclude Matera does not control on the facts presented here.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
When a defendant makes a mid-trial motion to revoke his self represented status and have standby counsel appointed for the remainder of the trial, does the trial court have a duty to manage the trial? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
Does a defendant have any grounds to argue that the trial court erred in failing to give the cautionary instruction at the end of trial? (California, United States of America)
In a motion for a new trial, is the trial court bound by the same principles as the court of appeal? (California, United States of America)
Does a motion for a new trial need to be denied because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review for a motion of appeal against a finding that the trial court erred in failing to grant a new trial on the grounds of misconduct of counsel? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
How have courts treated a defendant's claim that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct on the elements of rape and sodomy generally? (California, United States of America)
Whether a court's ruling is based on oral testimony or written declarations, when conflicting inferences can reasonably be drawn from the facts, can the appellate court defer to the trial court's factual determinations? (California, United States of America)
How have courts considered the argument that the trial court erred in failing to conduct an in camera hearing? (California, United States of America)
