Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: LAM11CJ3684, Date: 2023-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: LAM11CJ3684    Hearing Date: October 23, 2023    Dept: 26

Park Shadows COA, Inc. v. Moreno, et al.

MOTION TO QUASH WRIT OF EXECUTION

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motion of Non-Party Rony Zarco to Quash or Recall Writ of Execution is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Park Shadows Community Association, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendants Marta Moreno, Oscar A. Rivera, Ronnie Arcos (“Defendant Arcos”), and Jose Gonzalez on July 22, 2011. Judgment was entered against Defendants on August 12, 2013 and renewed on September 12, 2022. On March 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a writ of execution to enforce the judgment against Defendants Moreno, Rivera, and Arcos.

Non-party Rony Estuardo Zarco (“Zarco”) served a claim of exemption on April 26, 2023 and an opposition was filed by Plaintiff on May 24, 2023. It is not clear that the claim of exemption was ever filed with the Court because it is not available through the Court’s online filing system. The hearing on the claim of exemption was set for June 1, 2023 and continued to June 15, 2023. (Minute Order, 06/01/23.) On June 15, 2023, Plaintiff and Zarco appeared, Zarco was sworn in, and testified. (Minute Order, 06/15/23.)  The Court ordered Zarco to file a claim of exemption by July 14, 2023 and gave Plaintiff ten days thereafter to file a response. (Ibid.) The hearing on the claim of exemption was continued to July 31, 2023. (Ibid.)

Zarco did not file a claim of exemption but instead filed the instant Motion to Quash Writ of Execution on July 31, 2023. Plaintiff filed an opposition on October 10, 2023 and Zarco replied on October 13, 2023.

Discussion

Zarco brings the instant Motion pursuant to the Court’s authority to vacate a facially void order at any time. (Citing Jones v. World Life Research Institute (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 836, 847.) The Motion further points out that Zarco bears the burden of showing why the writ of execution should be quashed. (Citing Jackson v. Jordan (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 363, 368.) In opposition, Plaintiff does not address this case law and instead contends that Zarco has offered no legal authority.

Zarco moves to quash the writ of execution on the grounds that money owed for the judgment against Defendant Arcos was taken from Zarco’s Chase bank account. Zarco declares that he first learned of this case after receiving notice that money from his Chase bank account was being garnished. (Motion, Zarco Decl., ¶4.) No copy of this notice is attached. No other evidence that the money was taken from Zarco’s bank account is provided; surprisingly, the Reply does not address Plaintiff’s opposition argument regarding this lack of evidence by providing either the notice of garnishment or a bank statement showing that any money was withdrawn from Zarco’s account. Related to this opposition argument is one of standing and whether a non-party and person not named on the writ of execution can move to quash it. Plaintiff, however, fails to offer any legal authority on the subject so the Court declines to find that Zarco lacks standing to attack the writ of execution. (Opp., pp. 1:20-2:5.)

Zarco also contends he was notified by the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) to pick up an unknown certified letter but was not allowed to do so because the name on the letter was “Ronnie Arcos.” (Id. at ¶5.) Unhelpfully, Zarco does not elaborate on the relevance of this unknown certified letter to the writ of execution and no copy of the USPs notification is provided to the Court with the Motion or Reply. A similarly unexplained comment about the use of Zarco’s social security number is made in the Motion: that he did not authorize the use of his social security number by anyone. (Id. at ¶11.) Without more, the Court cannot simply speculate as to how this relates to the writ of execution. Finally, Zarco has not shown that the writ of execution is facially void, which is the very standard the Motion provides for the Court to quash it. Instead, the Motion relies on evidence that Zarco is not Defendant Arcos and has no relationship to the property at issue in this case or the other Defendants. (Id. at ¶¶2-9.)

Therefore, Zarco has neither demonstrated that his assets have been attached pursuant to the subject writ of execution, nor that the writ is facially void such that the Court has authority to quash it.

Conclusion

Motion of Non-Party Rony Zarco to Quash or Recall Writ of Execution is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.