4
a request for a clerk’s judgment on Judicial Council form CIV-
100, checking the boxes requesting the clerk to “[e]nter clerk’s
judgment . . . . ¶ . . . for restitution of the premises only and
issue a writ of execution on the judgment.” Eshagian did not
request any monetary damages. On May 3, 2023 the court clerk
entered a clerk’s judgment against Cepeda on Judicial Council
form UD-110, checking boxes indicating the judgment was for
“possession only.” The area of the form reserved for the amount
of damages awarded had the words “possession only” written
across the section. (Boldface and capitalization omitted.)
On May 19, 2023 Cepeda filed a motion to set aside and
vacate the possession-only judgment pursuant to section 663.
Cepeda argued the three-day notice did not comply with
section 1161(2), and therefore the complaint failed to state a
cause of action. Thus, he asserted, the trial court erred in
entering the default judgment.
On June 5, 2023 the trial court denied the motion to vacate,
stating Cepeda should have raised the deficiencies in the three-
day notice prior to entry of the possession-only judgment. Cepeda
timely appealed the possession-only judgment and the order
denying the motion to vacate to the appellate division of the
superior court. (See § 904.2 [“An appeal of a ruling by a superior
court judge or other judicial officer in a limited civil case is to the
appellate division of the superior court.”].)