Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: LAM11K18036, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: LAM11K18036    Hearing Date: May 25, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Karin Piet

RESP. PARTY:         Plaintiff Persolve LLC

MOTION TO VACATE RENEWAL

(CCP § 473(b))

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

OPPOSITION:          Filed on March 17, 2023                                    [   ] Late                      [   ] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of May 22, 2023                [   ] Late                      [ X ] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On November 16, 2011, Persolve LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Karin M. Piet (“Defendant”) for a debt that allegedly originally was owed by Defendant to Providian Bank. Plaintiff is the successor in interest to the debt. The Proof of Service shows that the Complaint was served on Defendant at 1155-1/2 S. Highland Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90019, by personal service on November 25, 2011 at 7:45 a.m. by a registered California process server.

No responsive pleading was filed, so on January 26, 2012, default was entered against Defendant and Defendant was served with the Request for Entry of Default. (01-26-12 Request for Entry of Default). Subsequently, Defendant was served with a copy of the Declaration re: Initial Interest in Support of Default Judgment and the Request for Clerk’s Judgment, which were mailed to her on January 31, 2012. On February 3, 2012, Judgment was entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant. (2-3-12 Default Judgment.) Defendant was served with the Memorandum of Costs after Judgment, Acknowledgement of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest on July 31, 2012. On March 1, 2013, the Sheriff levied on Defendant’s Wells Fargo bank account. (03-01-13 Writ).

On April 10, 2019, Defendant was served with a subsequent Memorandum of Costs after Judgment. (4/10/19 Memorandum of Costs) at a new address at 1426 S. Cochran Avenue in Los Angeles. In 2019, the Sheriff levied on Defendant’s bank account at US Bank. (12-20-19 Writ). Another Memorandum of Costs was served on Defendant on February 3, 2022. On December 21, 2022, Plaintiff served the Notice of Renewal of Judgment on Defendant.

On January 6, 2023, Defendant, in propria persona, filed the instant Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment (“Motion”). Defendant filed an amended motion on January 30, 2023. On March 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion (“Opposition”).

On March 30, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion for the parties to fix the following procedural defects: 1) Defendant’s Notice of Motion lists the address of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse at 111 N. Hill, when Department 25 is actually located at 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, and 2) Plaintiff submitted the declaration of counsel Duenas but the declaration is not signed.

Defendant filed a second amended Notice of Motion on April 12, 2023. Plaintiff filed an opposition on April 13, 2023. On April 26, 2023, the Court continued the Motion because Defendant failed to file proof of service of its Second Amended Notice of Motion and the Notice of Motion was confusingly worded and references a motion for summary judgment which had not been filed or scheduled.  The Court ordered Defendant to correct those deficiencies. 

Defendant has since filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint but has not corrected the deficiences for the instant Motion.  Accordingly, the Motion to Vacated Renewal of Judgment is DENIED. 

            Moving party is ordered to give notice.