Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 23STCV09738, Date: 2025-04-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV09738 Hearing Date: April 30, 2025 Dept: 45
IMMIGRANT
RIGHTS DEFENSE COUNCIL, LLC v. MARIA G. SEPULVEDA LUGO
motion to
quash writ of execution
Date of Hearing: April
30, 2025 Trial
Date: None
set.
Department: 45 Case
No.: 23STCV09738
Moving Party: Defendant
Maria G. Sepulveda Lugo
Responding Party: Plaintiff
Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC
BACKGROUND
On May
1, 2023, Plaintiff Immigration Rights Defense Council, LLC filed a complaint
against Defendant Maria G. Sepulveda Lugo for Violation of the Immigration
Consultant Act. Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated the Immigration Consultant
Act by not practicing in conformity with the ICA, holding out as an attorney to
the public, failing to provide written disclosures as required under the ICA
and so forth.
[Tentative] Ruling
Defendant’s Motion to Quash Writ of
Execution is DENIED.
DISCUSSION
Defendant Maria G. Sepulveda Lugo moves
for an order quashing the writ of execution in this matter on the grounds the
writ is improperly issued because the amount demanded is incorrect and Defendant
has already made payments to Plaintiff which the writ failed to acknowledge.
“When a creditor has a judgment in its
favor against a debtor, the creditor seeking to enforce that judgment against
the debtor's property must (1) obtain a writ of execution from the trial
court, which is directed to the sheriff or other levying officer and authorizes
them to enforce the judgment (§§ 699.510, subd. (a), 699.520), and (2) complete
and serve a notice of levy, which is directed to the judgment debtor or
third person holding the debtor's property and notifies them of their duties
and rights (§ 699.540).” (Bergstrom v. Zions Bancorporation, N.A.
(2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 387, 397–398.)
“[A] trial court has the power, and it
is the trial court's duty, to vacate or recall a writ of execution which has
been improvidently issued. [Citation.] If a writ of execution is issued to
enforce a void judgment, obviously it has been improvidently issued. ‘It is a
fundamental rule that a writ of execution must be founded upon a Valid and
subsisting judgment which has not been satisfied.’ [Citation.]” (Jones
v. World Life Research Institute (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 836,
840.)
Plaintiff opposes the motion on several
grounds. Plaintiff first argues the motion is not supported by any founded
and/or admissible evidence or a memorandum of points and authorities. The court
agrees. Parties must cite supporting legal authority in briefs submitted to the
Court. (See Cal. Rule of Court, rule 3.1113(b) [“The memorandum must contain a
statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments
relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in
support of the position advanced.”].) Although Plaintiff is self-represented,
they are held to the same rules of procedure as an attorney. (Burnete v. La
Casa Dana Apartments (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1267.) Besides failing to
provide any statement of the law, the evidence submitted is not authenticated
and no foundation has been laid as to the checks attached to the motion.
Plaintiff next argues the motion is
without merit because Defendant owes more on the debt than the amount that was
claimed in the Writ. Since the Writ, Plaintiff has submitted several memoranda
of costs, increasing Defendant’s debt by $3,699.45 plus the Sheriff’s costs of
levy which were added to the writ.
Lastly, Plaintiff argues the motion is
moot because a motion to quash a writ of execution will not lie after
completion of the levy and return of the writ. (See Adir Internat., LLC v.
Sup. Ct. (2013) 216 Cal. App. 4th 996, 1003.) The court agrees. The court
has no authority to order funds returned once the funds have already been
disbursed to the creditor.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to
Quash Writ of Execution is DENIED.