{"id":267,"date":"2026-02-05T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-02-05T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=267"},"modified":"2026-02-05T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-02-05T12:00:00","slug":"gerard-v-cuevas-jad25-14-section-1987-notice-terminating-sanction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=267","title":{"rendered":"Gerard v. Cuevas \u2014 Trial Court Abused Discretion by Imposing Terminating Sanction for Tenant’s Failure to Comply With Last-Minute Notice to Attend Trial"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Gerard v. Cuevas<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-02-05<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
25APLC00004<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Unlawful Detainer, Code of Civil Procedure section 1987, Notice to Attend, Terminating Sanctions, Default Judgment<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

The Gerard Trust filed an unlawful-detainer action against Janet Cuevas alleging failure to pay rent on a Covina single-family residence. Cuevas’s first-amended answer asserted multiple defenses, including breach of warranty of habitability, defective notice, and rent-stabilization-ordinance violations, and demanded a jury trial.<\/p>\n

On October 18, 2024 \u2014 three days before trial \u2014 plaintiff filed a section 1987 ‘Notice to Attend Trial’ demanding Cuevas appear personally as a witness on October 22, with no order shortening time. The matter was called for trial on October 21; both sides announced ready, and a panel of jurors was ordered. The next afternoon, voir dire began. The trial court took plaintiff’s oral motion to strike Cuevas’s answer under submission. On October 23, when Cuevas (who was at her place of employment with 91 minutes’ notice) did not appear, the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion to strike Cuevas’s answer and entered a default judgment for plaintiff.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Appellate Division reversed. Code of Civil Procedure section 1987 requires 10 days’ notice for a notice to attend trial absent a court order shortening time. Plaintiff’s notice was served three days before trial without any order shortening time, and the trial court’s retroactive ‘order’ effectively reducing the notice to 91 minutes was an abuse of discretion. Section 1987 protects the noticed party’s ability to plan and arrange to attend, and 91 minutes’ notice \u2014 to a person who was at work \u2014 does not satisfy the statute’s purpose.<\/p>\n

Even if the notice had been valid, the imposition of a terminating sanction (striking the answer and entering default judgment) was disproportionate. Lesser sanctions or a brief continuance to allow Cuevas to attend would have addressed any prejudice. Striking an answer and entering default for an unlawful-detainer trial is among the most drastic sanctions available, and is reserved for serious or repeated violations of court orders.<\/p>\n

The court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n