Hilado v. Aqua Farming Tech
After the court entered a judgment of default and granted a writ of execution against defendant Aqua Farming Tech., Inc., Aqua filed a request for an order to shorten the time for a hearing on its proposed motion to set aside the default and to stay the writ of execution. The court granted the motion. Plaintiffs Rudy Hilado and Filipina Hilado (collectively, plaintiffs) appealed (case No. E046093). Shortly thereafter, Aqua filed its motion to set aside the default alleging that plaintiffs had failed to properly serve it. The court granted the motion on the ground that [Aqua] was not properly served. Plaintiffs appealed that order (case No. E046576); this court consolidated the appeals.
Plaintiffs contend that because a judgment of default had been entered as to Aqua, Aqua had no standing to request an order shortening the time for hearing its proposed motion to set aside the default or to stay the writ of execution; thus, plaintiffs maintain that the court lacked authority to rule on Aquas request. Plaintiffs additionally contend that the court abused its discretion in setting aside the default judgment because Aqua had been served with the summons and complaint and had actual notice of them. Aqua responds that both orders from which plaintiffs appeal are nonappealable. Regardless, Aqua contends that the court had authority to rule on its request to shorten the time to hear its proposed motion to set aside the default and stay the writ of execution. Moreover, Aqua contends the court acted within its discretion in granting the motion to set aside the default. Court reject Aquas contention that the orders are not appealable. Moreover, Court hold that the court did have authority to rule on Aquas request. Additionally, court hold that the trial court acted within its discretion in granting Aquas motion to vacate the default. Thus, we affirm the judgment in full.
Comments on Hilado v. Aqua Farming Tech