In Sporn v. Home Depot USA, Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1294, the defendant conceded that it had been properly served with the summons, complaint, and request for entry of default. (Id. at p. 1298.) Nevertheless, it did not move to set aside the default and default judgment until almost eight months after the default judgment had been entered. (Ibid.) The trial court denied the motion, finding, among other reasons, that it was untimely. (Id. at p. 1299.) Plaintiffs seize upon the language in Sporn noting that "'the clerk's entry of default cuts off the defendant's right to take further affirmative steps such as filing a pleading or motion, and the defendant is not entitled to notices or service of pleadings or papers,'" for the proposition that Aqua, here, should have been prohibited from filing its ex parte applications. (Id. at p. 1301.) However, in Sporn, that language was directed at the defendant's contention that it was entitled to receive further notices regarding status and case management conferences, not, like here, whether it was entitled to file pleadings specifically dealing with setting aside the judgment of default. (Ibid.) Indeed, in Sporn the trial court permitted the defendant to file two ex parte applications for stay and the motion to set aside the default and default judgment after the default judgment had been entered. (Id. at p. 1298.)