Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: LAMK15K11661, Date: 2024-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: LAMK15K11661    Hearing Date: June 3, 2024    Dept: 14

LMarquez vs Villa

Case Background

            On September 22, 2015, Plaintiff Luis Marquez initiated this action against Defendants Meliton Villa and Leticia Villa for violation of Civil Code § 51 concerning the property located at 4504 Avalon Blvd., Los Angeles, California 90011.

            On February 8, 2016, defaults were entered against both defendants. Thereafter, on April 28, 2016, default judgment was entered against the defendants. On June 7, 2016, the abstract of judgment was issued.

On April 6, 2023, the writ of execution was issued on April 6, 2023.

            On February 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment, indicating that the judgment had been fully satisfied.

            On April 10, 2024 and April 15, 2024, Defendant Leticia Villa (“Defendant”) filed two identical motions to set aside default judgment. For the purposes of this hearing, this court shall treat the motions as one.

Instant Motion

Defendant now moves this court, per Code of Civil Procedure § 473.5, to set aside the default judgment entered against her.

Decision

            The motion is DENIED.

Discussion

            Defendant bases her motion on the premise that default judgment was entered on February 13, 2024. (Motion at pg. 5, Chan Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. A; Reply at pg. 2.) However, this argument is not persuasive because February 13, 2024 represents the date that Plaintiff acknowledged that the judgment, which was entered on April 18, 2016, had been satisfied. Defendant has failed to present any authority to suggest that a judgment can be re-entered following the filing of an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment. This court is unaware of any such authority.

In order to timely move for relief under Code of Civil Procedure § 473.5, the motion shall be filled “within a reasonable time, but in no event exceeding the earlier of: (i) two years after entry of a default judgment against him or her; or (ii) 180 days after service on him or her of a written notice that the default or default judgment has been entered.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473.5(a).) In this instance, the motion was filed nearly eight years after the entry of default judgment. As a result, the motion is untimely.  

Conclusion

Because Defendant waited nearly eight years to seek relief under Code of Civil Procedure § 473.5, the instant motion cannot be considered timely. While Defendant claims that judgment had been entered on February 13, 2024, this event within the case merely relates to the satisfaction of judgment.

The motion is DENIED.