Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 05K15910, Date: 2024-02-05 Tentative Ruling
*** Please Note that the Judicial Officer Presiding in Department 25 is Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong ***
If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.
Case Number: 05K15910 Hearing Date: February 5, 2024 Dept: 25
Hearing Date: Monday, February 05, 2024
Case Name: VENTURA
CANYON APARTMENTS UNION ADJUSTMENT CO INC, COLLECT ACCESS LLC v. PAMELA
GREGORY; KENNETH GREGORY
Case No.: LAM05K1910
Moving Party: Defendant
Kenneth Gregory
Responding Party: None
Notice: OK
Recommended Ruling: Plaintiff’s Motion to Permanently
Stop Zee Law Group from Using Court Documents, Orders, Subpoenas, Liens,
Abstract Judgments, Writ of Executions or Any Other Documents Against Defendant
and Squash All Subpoenas and Request for Defendant’s Private and Financial
Records is DENIED.
SERVICE:
[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC,
rule 3.1300) OK
[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK
[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c,
1005(b)) OK
OPPOSITION: None filed as of January 23,
2024 [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as
of January 29, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None
BACKGROUND
This case arises from an unlawful
detainer action brought on December 10, 1996, in Case No. 96U30120. On November
3, 2005, Plaintiff/Creditor Ventura Canyon Apartments (“Plaintiff”) filed an
application for and renewal of judgment in the instant case, LAM05K15910,
against Defendants/Debtors Kenneth and Pamela Gregory (collectively,
“Defendants” or “Debtors”). The judgment was initially entered on January 7,
1997, in the sum of $2,489.00, entered again on November 3, 2005, for
$2,645.89, and last entered on October 21, 2015 in the sum of $5,013.82. On
December 16, 2020, the judgment was assigned to Collect Access LLC. Collect
Access LLC filed an Abstract of Judgment on October 27, 2022.
On October 12, 2022,
Defendant/Debtor Kenneth Gregory filed a Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and
Default Judgment, which was voided because the Request to Waive Court Fees was
denied, and Defendant/Debtor failed to make the payment or request a hearing. Defendant/Debtor
filed a subsequent Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment on
November 2, 2022. Defendant/Debtor’s motion was denied for several reasons,
including failure to serve Plaintiff/Creditor and untimely filing.
On December 19, 2022,
Defendant/Debtor Kenneth Gregory filed another Motion to Vacate. Given that
Defendant/Debtor requested that the Court reconsider its ruling on November 28,
2022, “in light of newly discovered facts, information, circumstances, evidence
and law,” the Court determined that, in effect Debtor had filed a Motion for
Reconsideration. On March 8, 2023, the Court denied the motion for being
untimely. However, the Court ruled that “[n]o further interest or attorney’s
fees or other costs will accrue.”
On April 14, 2023, Creditor filed a
Memorandum of Costs. On April 17 and 27, 2023, Creditor filed Writs of
Execution for Los Angeles and Sacramento.
On April 27, 2023, Debtor filed a
Motion to Enforce Judge Katherine Chilton’s March 8, 2023, Order. The Court, on
its own motion, continued the hearing to July 26, 2023. On July 26, 2023, the
Court found that Debtor did not set forth a sufficient legal basis for the
relief requested and placed the motion off calendar. However, the Court, on its
own motion, set an Order to Show Cause Re: Violation of Court’s March 8, 2023,
Order for August 24, 2023, in Department 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse. On
May 15, 2023, Debtor also filed a Motion to Modify Interest, Deny or Modify
Expired Memorandum of Costs, Deny Duplicative Filings of Writ of Execution, and
Request Extension of Time to Resolve. On July 20, 2023, Creditor filed an opposition
to the motion. Debtor filed a reply on August 3, 2023. On August 7, 2023, the
Court continued the hearing on the motion to August 31, 2023, a date after the
Order to Show Cause Re: Violation of Court’s March 8, 2023, Order. On August
24, 2023, the OSC was continued to August 31, 2023, as well. On August 28,
2023, the Court on its own motion continued the hearing on the Motion and the
OSC to September 13, 2023. On September 8 and 11, 2023, Debtor and Creditor
filed supplemental papers for the Order to Show Cause. On September 13, 2023,
the court found that Debtor had not presented sufficient legal basis for the
relief requested, and that no supporting evidence was filed by Debtor, and
therefore denied the motion.
MOVING PARTY
POSITION
Defendant prays for the Court to
issue an order to permanently stop plaintiff, Zee Law Group and any of their
Affiliates from being able to illegally use any old court orders, invalid
subpoena(s), lien(s), abstract Judgment(s), writ of execution(s), etc. against
the Defendant. Defendant argues that the motion is proper to prevent plaintiff
from trying to fraudulently gain access to the Defendant's private information,
and illegally violating the Defendant’s privacy. Defendant asserts that he has
paid the Judgment in full, in the amount of $10,374.42 and Plaintiff
acknowledged that the judgment was satisfied in full on September 29, 2023. The
Plaintiff acknowledged in an email correspondence that “This matter is closed,
and paid in full”, therefore, Plaintiff has no legal rights or reason to misuse
court papers to try to gain access to Defendant’s private financial records.
OPPOSITION
No
opposition has been filed.
REPLY
No reply
has been filed.
ANALYSIS
I. Discussion
As a preliminary matter, the Court
notes that Defendant does not provide the Court with a sufficient legal basis
or relevant authority to provide him with the relief he is seeking. Further,
Defendant has not authenticated any of the documents he has provided to the
Court. Even if the Court accepted the bank letter provided in Defendant’s
moving paper as authenticated, the issue Defendant raises over the subpoena would
be moot because the bank indicated in the letter that documents would be mailed
on November 27, 2023, absent a court order directing them not to respond.
For these
reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
The Court notes that Plaintiff
filed an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment on October 11, 2023,
indicating that the judgment is satisfied in full, and that therefore, no
further information should be required of Defendant regarding the judgment.
III. Conclusion
Petitioner’s Motion to
Permanently Stop Zee Law Group from using Court Documents, Orders, Subpoenas,
Liens, Abstract Judgments, Writ of Executions or Any Other Documents Against
Defendant and Squash All Subpoenas and Request for Defendant Private and
Financial Records is DENIED.
Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice.