Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025)

Citation: Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025)
Parent Document: Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2025-06-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10617811/eshagian-v-cepeda/ ↗

Full Text

1,045 chars

17
       Nor can a tenant in default, if properly served, file a motion
to set aside a “void judgment or order” under section 473,
subdivision (d), to challenge a possession-only judgment. “Long-
standing Supreme Court precedent dictates that ‘a judgment is
not void if the court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the
subject matter, irrespective of whether or not the complaint
states a cause of action so long as it apprises the defendant of the
nature of the plaintiff’s demand.’” (First American Title Ins. Co.
v. Banerjee (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 37, 44, quoting Christerson v.
French (1919) 180 Cal. 523, 525.) “[E]ntering a default judgment
based on a complaint that apprises a defendant of the nature of
the plaintiff’s demand but does not adequately state a cause of
action is an act in excess of jurisdiction that renders a judgment
voidable rather than void.” (First American Title Ins. Co., at
p. 44.) 9
       Accordingly, unless the judgment can be challenged as void,
a defaulting defendant has no recourse in the trial court.

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text