How have courts dealt with a default judgment in a personal injury case?

not disturb the trial court's determination of controverted facts. [Citation.]" (Purdum v. Holmes (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 916, 922.) The court did not abuse its discretion in finding defendant had shown a meritorious defense.

We also concur defendant sufficiently met the other two elements, i.e., an adequate excuse for failing to defend the case and diligence in seeking to set aside the default upon learning of it. When defendant sought an extension to respond, plaintiffs granted him two weeks. Defendant had logistical problems trying to file his demurrer based on the e-filing requirement and confusion over filing fees. Two weeks after the due date, plaintiffs took defendant's default without warning. As the court noted, although there is no legal duty, there is an ethical duty to notify counsel before requesting entry of default. (Fasuyi v. Permatex, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 681, 701, 702.) And while failure to warn does not require a court to set aside the default, it is a strong factor falling on the side of relief. "'"The quiet speed of plaintiffs' attorney in seeking a default judgment without the knowledge of defendants' counsel is not to be commended." [Citations.]'" (Id. at p. 701.)