What is the test for setting aside a judgment against a defendant on the grounds of fraud?

(Gibble v. CarLene Research, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 295, 301, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 892.) The court may grant relief under its inherent equity power if, because of the fraud of his opponent, the aggrieved party was prevented from presenting his claim or defense to the court. [Citations.] Two essential conditions are found in a classic case in equity which seeks to set aside a judgment: first, the judgment is one entered against a party by default under circumstances which prevented him from presenting his case; second, these circumstances result from extrinsic fraud practiced by the other party or his attorney. (Id. at p. 314, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 892.) Fraud is intrinsic and not a valid ground for setting aside a judgment when the party has been given notice of the action and has had an opportunity to present his case and to protect himself from any mistake or fraud of his adversary, but has unreasonably neglected to do so. (Id. at p. 315, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 892.)

Additionally, the party seeking equitable relief on the grounds of extrinsic fraud or mistake must show three elements: (1) a meritorious defense; (2) a satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense in the first place; and (3) diligence in seeking to set aside the default judgment once discovered. (Gibble v. CarLene Research, Inc., supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 315, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 892.)