Form UD-115 is the California Judicial Council’s “Stipulation for Entry of Judgment” used in unlawful detainer (eviction) cases, and you fill it out by identifying the parties, stating the agreed money judgment, possession terms, payment schedule, and move-out date, then signing it before a judge enters it as an enforceable court order. It converts a private settlement between a landlord and tenant into a binding judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, which means the court keeps power to enforce the deal if either side breaks it.
California courts processed roughly 38,000 unlawful detainer filings in fiscal year 2023-24, and the Judicial Council estimates that more than 70% of UD cases settle before trial, with most settlements memorialized on Form UD-115. Filling it out wrong can cost a tenant their housing, wreck their credit for seven years, or leave a landlord unable to collect a single dollar of unpaid rent.
Here is what you will learn in this guide:
- 📝 Line-by-line instructions for every box, checkbox, and attachment on Judicial Council Form UD-115
- ⚖️ The legal consequences of each choice, including masking under CCP §1161.2 and enforcement under CCP §664.6
- 🏠 Three real-world scenarios (nonpayment, nuisance, post-foreclosure) with named examples
- 🚫 The seven most common mistakes that void stipulations or trigger sheriff lockouts
- 💡 FAQs covering credit reporting, AB 1482 just-cause overlays, sealing, and breach remedies
What Form UD-115 Is and Why It Exists
Form UD-115 is the official Judicial Council form titled “Stipulation for Entry of Judgment — Unlawful Detainer.” The California Judicial Council adopted it for mandatory use in limited and unlimited civil unlawful detainer actions, and you can download the current revision from the California Courts forms page. It exists because eviction cases are fast-tracked under CCP §1167, and judges need a clean, standardized vehicle to lock in settlements.
The form is essentially a contract that becomes a court judgment the moment the judge signs it. Without UD-115, a landlord and tenant who shake hands in the hallway have only a private agreement, which means the landlord must file a brand-new breach-of-contract lawsuit if the tenant breaks the deal. With UD-115, the same agreement becomes enforceable through a writ of possession issued by the court clerk, often within days.
The plain-English explanation is simple: it is a peace treaty with teeth. The consequence of skipping it is that you lose the court’s enforcement power and must start over. A real-world example: tenant Maria signs a hallway promise to pay $4,500 and move out, then refuses; without UD-115, landlord David must sue her again in small claims court. A common misconception is that UD-115 is “just paperwork” — in reality, it is a self-executing judgment.
Statutory Anchors Behind the Form
The form’s authority flows from three statutes working together. CCP §664.6 lets parties stipulate to a judgment and asks the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce it. CCP §1161.2 governs the masking (sealing) of unlawful detainer records, and a properly drafted UD-115 can preserve that mask. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1385 addresses dismissal duties after settlement.
The consequence of ignoring §664.6’s “retain jurisdiction” language is huge: if the stipulation does not expressly ask the judge to retain jurisdiction, the court loses power to enforce the deal once the case is dismissed, as the California Supreme Court held in Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429. Landlord Priya learned this the hard way when her UD-115 omitted the magic language; her tenant defaulted, and she had to file a separate civil suit. The misconception that “the court automatically keeps jurisdiction” is dangerous and false.
Before You Fill Anything Out: Federal and State Foundations
Federal law sets the floor, and California law builds upward. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a landlord’s collection attorney cannot misrepresent the legal status of a debt on the stipulation. The federal CARES Act 30-day notice requirement still applies to certain federally-backed properties, and skipping it can void the underlying eviction even after a UD-115 is signed.
California layers on the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482), which requires “just cause” to terminate most tenancies of 12+ months. Local ordinances in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley add stricter overlays, including relocation payments and stricter notice rules. The consequence of stipulating to a judgment that violates a local just-cause ordinance is that the tenant can later move to vacate the judgment under CCP §473.
A real-world example clarifies the stakes. Tenant Jamal lives in a rent-controlled Berkeley unit and signs a UD-115 agreeing to move out for “no cause.” Six months later, his attorney moves to vacate the judgment because the underlying notice violated Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.76, and the court grants the motion. The misconception that “a signed stipulation cures all defects” is wrong — fundamental jurisdictional and substantive defects survive the signature.
What You Need in Hand Before You Start
Gather these documents before opening the PDF. You need the case caption from the Summons (Form SUM-130) and the Complaint — Unlawful Detainer (Form UD-100). You need the lease, the three-day or 60-day notice, all rent ledgers, and any prior court orders. You also need the exact case number, the names of all parties as pleaded, and the court branch information.
The consequence of using mismatched names — for example, listing “Bob Smith” on UD-115 when the complaint says “Robert J. Smith” — is that the clerk may reject the writ of possession because the parties do not match. Landlord Elena had her writ rejected twice in Los Angeles Superior Court for this exact reason. The misconception is that “close enough” works in court; it does not, and the consequence is days of lost enforcement time during which the tenant remains in possession.
Line-by-Line Walkthrough of Form UD-115
The form has a caption block at the top, numbered paragraphs 1 through 9, signature lines, and an optional attachment page. Each line carries legal weight, and skipping or misfilling any of them creates problems. The current revision (effective January 1, 2024) is the only version courts will accept, and you can verify the revision date in the lower-left corner of the PDF.
Caption Block (Top of Page 1)
The caption block mirrors the complaint exactly. Type the attorney’s name, State Bar number, firm name, address, telephone, fax, and email in the upper-left box. If you are self-represented (pro per), write “Self-Represented” where the bar number goes. Below that, list the superior court county, the street address of the courthouse, the mailing address, the city and zip, and the branch name.
The plain-English explanation is that this is the envelope of the document. The consequence of an error is that the clerk may file the form in the wrong department, delaying enforcement by a week or more. Real example: paralegal Kenji typed “Stanley Mosk Courthouse” instead of “Spring Street Courthouse” for an LA limited civil case, and the stipulation sat in the wrong department for 11 days. The misconception that “the court will figure it out” ignores how decentralized California’s 58 county systems are.
Paragraph 1 — Parties to the Stipulation
Paragraph 1 lists every plaintiff and every defendant who is signing. Check the box for each party, and write their full legal names exactly as they appear in the Complaint UD-100. If a defendant was named as “Doe 1” and later identified, list both the true name and the Doe designation.
The consequence of leaving out a defendant is that the stipulation does not bind that person, and the landlord cannot use the writ of possession against them. Landlord Tomás forgot to add his tenant’s adult son who had moved in; when the son refused to leave, the sheriff’s lockout could not remove him without a separate Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession (Form CP10.5) process. The misconception that “anyone in the unit must leave” ignores due-process rights of unnamed occupants.
Paragraph 2 — Possession of the Premises
Paragraph 2 controls who gets the keys. Check box 2a if the plaintiff (landlord) gets possession, and fill in the move-out date. Check box 2b if the defendant (tenant) keeps possession on conditions. The move-out date should be specific (e.g., “by 11:59 p.m. on June 30, 2026”), not vague.
The consequence of writing a vague date like “within a reasonable time” is that the judge may strike the term or the writ clerk may refuse to issue. Tenant Aisha agreed to “leave soon” and stayed 90 extra days; the landlord’s enforcement motion failed for vagueness. The plain-English rule is to use a calendar date and a clock time. The misconception that “the court will pick a date” wastes weeks of motion practice.
Paragraph 3 — Money Judgment
Paragraph 3 is the financial core. Itemize past-due rent, holdover damages at the daily rate, attorney’s fees (if the lease has a fee clause under Civil Code §1717), court costs, and any agreed waivers. Total it. If the parties agree to $0, write zero — do not leave it blank.
The consequence of leaving the money line blank is that the judgment is unenforceable for any dollar amount, and the landlord cannot pursue wage garnishment under CCP §706.010 et seq.. Landlord Whitney left the line blank because “we agreed verbally to $3,000,” and the court entered a zero-dollar judgment. The misconception that “we can fix it later” runs into the rule that judgments are final unless timely appealed.
Paragraph 4 — Payment Terms
Paragraph 4 sets the payment schedule. Check 4a for lump-sum, 4b for installments, or 4c for waiver. Specify due dates, amounts, the name and address of the payee, and the acceptable methods (cashier’s check, Zelle, money order). Include a grace period if you want one — typically 3 to 5 days.
The consequence of skipping the payee address is that the tenant has no place to send the check, and the landlord cannot prove nonpayment cleanly. Tenant Rafael mailed checks to an old address; the landlord declared default, but the judge found the stipulation defective. The plain-English rule is to be obsessive about specifics. The misconception is that Venmo handshake terms hold up — they rarely do without explicit written consent.
Paragraph 5 — Conditions on Tenant Remaining
If the tenant is staying (the so-called “pay and stay” deal), paragraph 5 lists the conditions. Common conditions include current rent staying current, no new occupants, no nuisance behavior, and no further notices. Tie each condition to a specific consequence on default.
The consequence of vague conditions is unenforceability under the unconscionability doctrine and contract-interpretation rules favoring the non-drafter. Tenant Hugo agreed to “behave appropriately”; when the landlord declared default for a loud party, the court found the term too vague to enforce. The misconception that “everyone knows what ‘behave’ means” ignores how strictly California construes ambiguity against drafters under Civil Code §1654.
Paragraph 6 — Stay of Execution and Writ Issuance
Paragraph 6 controls when the writ of possession issues. The standard structure is: if the tenant performs, the writ never issues; if the tenant defaults, the landlord files an ex parte declaration and the writ issues immediately. Specify the declaration form, the notice (or no-notice) requirement, and the proof needed.
The consequence of requiring a noticed motion instead of ex parte relief is delay — typically 16 court days under CCP §1005(b). Landlord Ingrid drafted a noticed-motion clause and waited 22 days while her tenant trashed the unit. The plain-English advice is to use the ex parte path. The misconception that “noticed motions are fairer” ignores the fact that the tenant already agreed in writing.
Paragraph 7 — Dismissal Upon Performance
Paragraph 7 says the case will be dismissed when the tenant performs all terms. This protects the tenant’s record because, under CCP §1161.2, the case file is automatically masked for 60 days after filing, and a dismissal locks in permanent masking.
The consequence of skipping paragraph 7 is that the tenant ends up with a public unlawful detainer judgment on their record, which tenant-screening services like LeaseRunner and Experian RentBureau report for up to seven years. Tenant Sofia performed every term but the landlord never dismissed; she was rejected by 14 apartments before her attorney filed a motion to seal. The misconception that “performance alone clears the record” ignores the affirmative dismissal step.
Paragraph 8 — Retention of Jurisdiction (CCP §664.6)
Paragraph 8 must include the magic words: “The court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this stipulation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.” Without this exact concept, the court loses power to enforce the deal.
The consequence is catastrophic and was confirmed in Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913 and Wackeen v. Malis. Landlord Marcus omitted the language; his tenant defaulted, and Marcus had to file a brand-new $2,400 lawsuit. The plain-English rule is to copy the statutory language verbatim. The misconception that “664.6 is automatic” is the single most expensive mistake landlords make on UD-115.
Paragraph 9 — Other Terms / Attachment Page
Paragraph 9 catches everything else: confidentiality, mutual non-disparagement, security-deposit treatment under Civil Code §1950.5, key returns, utility transfers, mail forwarding, and cash-for-keys credits. If you need more space, attach Form MC-025 (Attachment).
The consequence of squeezing terms into the margin is illegibility and clerk rejection. Paralegal Devi attached a typed addendum without using MC-025; the clerk bounced the filing. The plain-English rule is to use the official attachment form. The misconception that “any attached page works” ignores California Rules of Court, rule 2.100 on form requirements.
Three Real-World Scenarios
Scenarios show how the form behaves under pressure. Each scenario below assumes a $2,500/month Los Angeles unit, current 2026 court fees of $370 for limited civil filings, and the January 2024 revision of UD-115.
Scenario A — Nonpayment with Pay-and-Stay Plan
Tenant Linda Park owes $7,500 (three months) and wants to stay. Landlord Greenway Holdings LLC agrees to a 12-month repayment plan at $625/month on top of current rent.
| Stipulation Term | Real-World Effect |
|---|---|
| $7,500 money judgment, stayed | Judgment exists but cannot be enforced unless Linda defaults |
| $625/month for 12 months, due on the 5th | Creates a measurable benchmark for default |
| Current rent must stay current | Adds second default trigger to protect cash flow |
| Ex parte writ on default with 3-day declaration | Lockout possible within 7 court days of missed payment |
| Dismissal and mask upon full performance | Linda’s record stays clean under CCP §1161.2 |
Scenario B — Nuisance Move-Out (Cash-for-Keys)
Tenant Brandon Cole is accused of nuisance under CCP §1161(4). Landlord Ortega Family Trust wants him out fast. They agree to $4,000 cash-for-keys, mutual waiver of money damages, and 21 days to vacate.
| Stipulation Term | Real-World Effect |
|---|---|
| $0 money judgment, mutual waiver | No collection action either direction |
| Brandon vacates by Day 21, broom-clean | Landlord regains unit without sheriff’s fees ($150) |
| $4,000 paid at key handoff | Aligns incentives, avoids prepayment risk |
| Confidentiality and non-disparagement | Protects landlord’s reputation on Yelp and Google reviews |
| Case dismissed with prejudice on Day 22 | Triggers permanent mask under CCP §1161.2 |
Scenario C — Post-Foreclosure Occupant
Occupant Yusuf Rahman lived in a property that the new owner, Pacific REO Servicing, acquired at a trustee’s sale. Yusuf is a bona fide tenant entitled to 90-day notice under CCP §1161b.
| Stipulation Term | Real-World Effect |
|---|---|
| 90-day move-out, no money judgment | Honors federal Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act |
| $3,500 relocation assistance | Common in REO sales to avoid litigation |
| Yusuf waives jury trial and right to appeal | Locks finality |
| Court retains jurisdiction under §664.6 | Enables ex parte writ if Yusuf overstays |
| Mutual release of all claims | Forecloses later wrongful-eviction suit |
Three Named-Person Examples (Detailed)
Concrete examples show how filling out each line shapes outcomes. These are realistic composites built from common Los Angeles and San Francisco fact patterns.
Example 1 — Maria Gutierrez (Tenant, San Francisco)
Maria rents a $3,200/month one-bedroom in the Mission. She loses her restaurant job and falls $9,600 behind. Her landlord serves a 3-day notice to pay or quit and files a UD complaint. Maria connects with the Eviction Defense Collaborative and negotiates a UD-115 with these terms: $9,600 judgment, stayed; $400/month repayment over 24 months; current rent stays current; dismissal and mask on full performance; ex parte writ on default with 5-day cure period.
Maria pays every month for 18 months, then misses a payment. Because the stipulation includes a 5-day cure period in paragraph 6, she sends the missed amount on day 4 and avoids the writ. The plain-English lesson is that cure periods save tenancies. The consequence of omitting the cure period would have been a sheriff’s lockout for a single late payment.
Example 2 — David Chen (Landlord, Los Angeles)
David owns a fourplex covered by the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Tenant Olivia owes $5,400 and has hosted three loud parties. David’s attorney drafts a UD-115 that includes nuisance acknowledgement, a $5,400 stipulated judgment, a 30-day move-out, and a Civil Code §1942.5 waiver. The court enters the judgment.
David remembers to add the CCP §664.6 language and the ex parte writ clause. When Olivia overstays by two days, David obtains a writ within 48 hours and the Los Angeles County Sheriff posts a lockout notice for day 5. The consequence of David’s careful drafting is total enforcement in under a week. The misconception he avoided is that “any stipulation works the same way.”
Example 3 — Priya Shah (Pro Per Tenant, Alameda County)
Priya represents herself in Hayward Hall of Justice. She uses the Self-Help Center to draft a UD-115. She negotiates a $0 judgment, a 45-day move-out, return of her $3,200 security deposit minus $400 in agreed cleaning, and a confidentiality clause.
Priya carefully checks paragraph 7 (dismissal upon performance) and paragraph 8 (jurisdiction retention). Forty-five days later, she moves out and sends a signed Request for Dismissal (Form CIV-110) to the landlord. The case is dismissed with prejudice, her record is permanently masked, and she gets her deposit refund. The consequence of her diligence is a clean tenant-screening report for future apartments.
Mistakes to Avoid (Minimum Seven)
Every mistake below has cost real Californians their homes, money, or both. Treat this as a checklist.
- Omitting CCP §664.6 retention language. The court loses enforcement power, and you must file a new lawsuit to collect or evict.
- Using vague move-out dates. “Within a reasonable time” is unenforceable; the writ clerk will refuse to issue.
- Leaving the money judgment blank when you mean zero. A blank line is interpreted as no agreement, blocking later enforcement.
- Forgetting to name all adult occupants. Unnamed occupants cannot be removed by the sheriff’s lockout without separate process.
- Skipping paragraph 7 (dismissal on performance). The tenant ends up with a public eviction record that haunts future rental applications for up to seven years under CCP §1161.2.
- Drafting noticed-motion default clauses. A 16-court-day delay under CCP §1005 lets the breaching tenant stay free for weeks.
- Ignoring local just-cause ordinances. A stipulation that violates AB 1482 or city rent control can be vacated under CCP §473.
- Failing to use Form MC-025 for attachments. Loose addenda violate Rule of Court 2.100, causing clerk rejection.
- Mismatched names between complaint and stipulation. The writ of possession will be rejected by the clerk’s office, costing days of enforcement time.
- Hand-shake payment terms. Without specifying payee, address, and method, default is unprovable.
Do’s and Don’ts
Each item below comes with its “why.”
- Do copy the CCP §664.6 language verbatim, because California courts strictly require the magic words.
- Do specify dates with calendar days and clock times, because vagueness defeats enforcement.
- Do attach Form MC-025 for additional terms, because clerk rules forbid loose pages.
- Do include a short cure period (3 to 5 days) for tenants, because it prevents lockout over honest mistakes.
- Do check local just-cause ordinances before signing, because AB 1482 overrides private agreements that try to waive tenant rights.
- Don’t sign without reading every line, because the judgment is final once the judge enters it.
- Don’t use phrases like “as soon as possible” or “reasonable efforts,” because California construes ambiguity against the drafter under Civil Code §1654.
- Don’t waive masking rights, because public eviction records destroy rental prospects for seven years.
- Don’t rely on oral side-agreements, because the parol evidence rule excludes them.
- Don’t sign for absent co-tenants, because their rights survive the stipulation.
Pros and Cons of Settling with UD-115
Each item explains the “why.”
Pros
- Speed. Settlement on UD-115 takes hours; trial takes weeks under CCP §1170.5.
- Cost savings. Trial fees, attorney time, and lost rent often exceed $5,000 — settlement is cheaper.
- Privacy. Properly drafted UD-115 keeps the case file masked under CCP §1161.2.
- Certainty. Parties control the outcome rather than rolling the dice with a jury.
- Enforceability. Court retains jurisdiction under §664.6, allowing fast ex parte enforcement.
Cons
- Finality. Once entered, the judgment is hard to vacate absent fraud or mistake under CCP §473.
- Money owed becomes a judgment. A judgment can be reported to credit bureaus for seven years under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
- Waiver of defenses. Tenants typically waive habitability and retaliation defenses they could have raised at trial.
- Pressure dynamics. Tenants in court hallways often sign without counsel, which the Shriver Civil Counsel Act tries to fix but not everywhere.
- Limited appeal. Stipulated judgments are usually non-appealable, removing a key safety valve.
Key Entities and Their Roles
The form’s ecosystem includes courts, clerks, sheriffs, and screening companies. Each plays a distinct role.
The California Judicial Council drafts and updates the form. The Superior Court of California in each county processes the filing. The court clerk issues the writ of possession after default. The county sheriff executes the lockout, typically 5 to 15 days after writ issuance. Tenant-screening companies like TransUnion SmartMove and Experian RentBureau report unmasked judgments.
The roles connect like a relay race: parties sign, judge enters, clerk issues, sheriff executes, and screening companies record. The plain-English consequence is that one weak link breaks the chain. Tenant Wei learned this when the sheriff refused to lock out an unnamed roommate, costing his landlord 22 extra days. The misconception that “the court does it all” ignores the multi-agency reality.
Recap of Key Court Rulings
Three cases shape UD-115 practice in 2026. Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429 holds that without express §664.6 retention, the court loses enforcement power. Critzer v. Enos (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1242 confirms that §664.6 motions can enforce stipulations even after dismissal if jurisdiction is retained. J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 974 addresses what counts as a binding “writing signed by the parties.”
The plain-English takeaway is that the magic language in paragraph 8 is everything. The consequence of skipping it has been confirmed by appellate courts repeatedly. A real example: in a 2022 unpublished Second District opinion, a landlord lost the ability to enforce a $22,000 stipulation. The misconception that “older cases don’t apply” is wrong — these doctrines are still controlling law in 2026.
Sealing, Credit, and Long-Term Consequences
CCP §1161.2 automatically masks UD case files for 60 days after filing. If the tenant prevails, or the case is dismissed within 60 days, the mask becomes permanent. If a judgment for possession is entered against the tenant, the mask lifts and the case becomes public — devastating for future housing applications.
The consequence of an unmasked judgment is real. Studies by the Eviction Lab at Princeton show that even one public eviction record cuts apartment-application acceptance rates by more than 50%. Tenant Carlos was rejected from 22 apartments in 8 months after his record went public. The plain-English advice is to draft for dismissal, not just performance. The misconception that “credit doesn’t track evictions” ignores the entire tenant-screening industry.
How to File and Get the Judgment Entered
After both parties sign, file the UD-115 with the clerk along with a Proposed Judgment (Form UD-110). Some courts require a Stipulated Judgment hearing; others process by drop-box. Check your county’s local rules before filing.
The consequence of filing without UD-110 is delay: the clerk has nothing to enter as a judgment, and the file sits. Landlord Hannah filed only UD-115; her file sat for 19 days until her paralegal added UD-110. The plain-English rule is to file both forms together. The misconception that “UD-115 is self-executing” ignores the role of the proposed judgment form.
FAQs
Can I fill out Form UD-115 without a lawyer?
Yes. Self-represented parties can complete UD-115 using free help from California Courts Self-Help, local legal-aid clinics, or a court Family Law Facilitator. Mistakes are common, so review every line before signing.
Does Form UD-115 work in every California county?
Yes. It is a Judicial Council form adopted for mandatory use statewide, accepted in all 58 county superior courts under California Rules of Court 1.31. Local rules may add filing procedures.
Will signing UD-115 hurt my credit?
Yes, if a money judgment is entered. Money judgments can appear on credit reports for up to seven years under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, even when paid. A $0 judgment avoids this.
Can I cancel a UD-115 after signing?
No, not unilaterally. Once entered, the judgment is binding and can only be set aside through a CCP §473 motion based on mistake, fraud, or excusable neglect within 6 months.
Does UD-115 keep my eviction record private?
Yes, if drafted correctly. Properly including dismissal-on-performance language under CCP §1161.2 keeps the case masked from tenant-screening companies permanently.
Can the landlord skip the magic CCP §664.6 language?
No, not safely. Without express retention of jurisdiction, the court cannot enforce the stipulation, as held in Wackeen v. Malis, forcing the landlord to file a new civil suit.
Is a sheriff’s lockout still required after UD-115?
Yes, if the tenant refuses to leave voluntarily. Only the county sheriff may physically remove a tenant after a writ of possession issues; landlord self-help is illegal.
Does AB 1482 override what I sign on UD-115?
Yes, in most tenancies over 12 months. The Tenant Protection Act just-cause and relocation rules cannot be waived by stipulation, and violations let tenants vacate the judgment.
Can I include a confidentiality clause?
Yes. Paragraph 9 or a Form MC-025 attachment can include mutual non-disclosure and non-disparagement, subject to public-policy limits on hiding fraud or sexual harassment.
Do I need to attend court to sign?
No, in most counties. Many courts accept drop-box filings or e-filing through eCourt systems, and the judge signs in chambers. Some judges still require a brief hearing to confirm voluntariness.
Can a UD-115 include a security-deposit return?
Yes. Paragraph 9 can address Civil Code §1950.5 deposit refund timing, deductions, and itemization to avoid a later small-claims battle.
Will UD-115 stop a sheriff’s lockout that already started?
Yes, if signed and entered before the sheriff posts the 5-day notice to vacate. Once posted, only an emergency ex parte application can pause execution.
Is there a filing fee for UD-115?
No separate fee for the stipulation itself. The original unlawful detainer filing fee ($240–$450 depending on amount) covers post-filing motions and stipulations under Government Code §70614.
Related reading
- Can Head of Household Remove Someone From Lease? (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form UD-100 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form UD-101 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form UD-105 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form UD-110 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form UD-116 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out Washington Form LT 01 (w/Examples) + FAQs