Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment?

Useful Rulings on Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment

Recent Rulings on Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment

INFO TECH CORPORATION VS CALIFORNIA LAWYERS GROUP LLP

Info Tech is not entitled to an order compelling acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment at this time. While Info Tech may be entitled to an order compelling acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment in connection with CLG’s $9,660.80 judgment on its cross-complaint, Info Tech’s request that the awarded monetary sanctions be included in the judgment is unsupported.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST INC VS CITIZEN JANE PRODUCTION

On September 13, 2019, Mitchell filed an acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment, that judgment is satisfied in full. (09/13/19 Acknowledgment of Satisfaction.) On March 6, 2020, the appellate court issued a remittitur, attaching a copy of the original opinion of December 17, 2019.

  • Hearing

SMITH VS LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Plaintiff filed an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment on January 2, 2018. Plaintiff has filed this case based upon the same publication. The Statute of Limitations for Libel or Slander is One Year An action for libel or slander must be brought within one year of discovery. (Code Civ. Pro., § 340 subd. (c).) The "rule of discovery," which can toll a statute of limitation, generally applies to action for libel or slander. (Manguso v. Oceanside Unified School Dist. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 725 731.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

SMITH VS LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Plaintiff filed an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment on January 2, 2018. Plaintiff has filed this case based upon the same publication. The Statute of Limitations for Libel or Slander is One Year An action for libel or slander must be brought within one year of discovery. (Code Civ. Pro., § 340 subd. (c).) The "rule of discovery," which can toll a statute of limitation, generally applies to action for libel or slander. (Manguso v. Oceanside Unified School Dist. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 725 731.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

CITIBANK SOUTH DAKOTA NA V. FERNANDO ARROYO

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Set Aside Acknowledgment of Satisfction of Judgment Motion to Set Aside Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment Attorneys For Plaintiff: Taylor Preston (The Moore Law Group – Santa Ana) Defendant: represents self Ruling: The Court grants plaintiff Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.’s motion to set aside the Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment filed in this case on December 29, 2017.

  • Hearing

WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST INC VS CITIZEN JANE PRODUCTION

On September 13, 2019, Mitchell filed an acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment, that judgment is satisfied in full. (09/13/19 Acknowledgment of Satisfaction.) On March 6, 2020, the appellate court issued a remittitur, attaching a copy of the original opinion of December 17, 2019.

  • Hearing

WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST INC VS CITIZEN JANE PRODUCTION

On September 13, 2019, Mitchell filed an acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment, that judgment is satisfied in full. (09/13/19 Acknowledgment of Satisfaction.) On March 6, 2020, the appellate court issued a remittitur, attaching a copy of the original opinion of December 17, 2019.

  • Hearing

WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST INC VS CITIZEN JANE PRODUCTION

On September 13, 2019, Mitchell filed an acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment, that judgment is satisfied in full. (09/13/19 Acknowledgment of Satisfaction.) On March 6, 2020, the appellate court issued a remittitur, attaching a copy of the original opinion of December 17, 2019.

  • Hearing

TYCO VS. CENTURY FURNITURE

In the meantime, the Plaintiff was busy executing on its judgment and on February 3, 2020 filed an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment. Grounds for Motion to Vacate Defendant claims that its motion to vacate should be granted because of lack of notice.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

FRIEDRICH WERNER VS RONALD ANDREW BROWN, ET AL.

Brown now seeks an order pursuant to CCP 724.020 and CCP 724.050, et seq. stating that the judgment in this matter has been satisfied and compelling Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Friedrich Werner to file with this court an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment. Alternatively, Brown seeks an order compelling the court clerk to enter satisfaction of judgment in this matter.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ADLI LAW GROUP, P.C., A CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VS HELENA DEEDS, AN INDIVIDUAL

In any event, the Court notes that on July 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment, indicating that the judgment against Deeds has been fully satisfied. Therefore, Deeds’s claim of exemption is moot. Accordingly, the Court orders the hearing on the claim of exemption off calendar. DATED: August 4, 2020 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

MELINDA MABRY VS DOE 1 ET AL

The parties should discuss the filing of an Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment (EJ-100 form) with the Court, as bank records were eventually produced and Defendant Welch paid the settlement amount. C. Attorney’s Fees and Costs; Interest Plaintiff requests reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for bringing this motion.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FJELD VS. ABADIR

Defendants then filed a motion in this court on October 23, 2017, under CCP § 724.050, for an order requiring plaintiffs to file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment through performance of the Payment Agreement. On November 29, 2017, the court denied that motion, ruling that the Payment Agreement had to be strictly construed, there had not been complete compliance, and thus that defendants were not entitled to an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. (See Ex. M to McKay Decl.)

  • Hearing

TBF FINANCIAL I LLC VS HEMET SAN JACINTO VALLEY CH

ANALYSIS CCP §724.030 provides: “When a money judgment is satisfied, the judgment creditor immediately shall file with the court an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment.”

  • Hearing

WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST INC VS CITIZEN JANE PRODUCTION

On September 13, 2019, Mitchell filed an acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment, that judgment is satisfied in full. (09/13/19 Acknowledgment of Satisfaction.) On March 6, 2020, the appellate court issued a remittitur, attaching a copy of the original opinion of December 17, 2019.

  • Hearing

WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST INC VS CITIZEN JANE PRODUCTION

On September 13, 2019, Mitchell filed an acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment, that judgment is satisfied in full. (09/13/19 Acknowledgment of Satisfaction.) On March 6, 2020, the appellate court issued a remittitur, attaching a copy of the original opinion of December 17, 2019.

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On May 21, 2020, Judgment Creditor filed a request to take the Motion off calendar and an Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment demonstrating the Judgment was satisfied in full. (5/21/20 Notice of Request to Take Matter Off Calendar; Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment.) Accordingly, the Motion is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

  • Hearing

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COLLECTION SERVICE, INC VS, CORTE MADERA TOWING, INC,

Although plaintiff has submitted to defendant a stipulation to vacate the Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment, defendant has failed to respond, necessitating this motion, For good cause appearing pursuant, plaintist motion to vacate the Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment filed October 15, 2019 is GRANTED, (See Kinm'son v.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    STEPHEN P, FRECCERO

  • County

    Marin County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On May 11, 2020, Judgment Creditor filed an Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment, indicating the Judgment had been satisfied in full. Accordingly, Judgment Creditor’s Motion is PLACED OFF CALENDAR. Conclusion & Order For the foregoing reasons, Judgment Creditor Merrill Corp., Inc.’s Motion for an Assignment Order is PLACED OFF CALENDAR. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

JASON BACHER VS. KB HOME SACRAMENTO INC

The Court has received Plaintiffs' Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment, filed May 21, 2020, indicating that the judgment issued in this case has been satisfied in full. The Court has also received the Jointly Submitted Response to Order to Show Case re: Settlement Completion filed May 21, 2020, in which the parties indicate that the case has been resolved and request that the June 1, 2020 hearing be vacated.

  • Hearing

SARGON ENTERPRISES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

On April 3, 2018, AEIC filed an Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment, stating that Sargon fully satisfied the full judgment and was released. (LB RJN, Exh. D.) Res Judicata Here, Lewis Brisbois argues that the present action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. (Motion at p. 5.) It contends that Sargon and Lewis Brisbois previously litigated the issue at hand in the interpleader action (Case No.

  • Hearing

DALE REICHENEDER VS JENNIFER VENCILL

Defendant moves to compel plaintiff to file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. Plaintiff argues defendant still owes costs, interest and attorney’s fees. When a money judgment is satisfied, the judgment creditor shall immediately file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §724.030. If a judgment creditor fails to file the acknowledgment immediately, the judgment debtor may mail a demand that creditor file an acknowledgment. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §724.050.

  • Hearing

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY VS. LORENZO, JOSIE

Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment – MOOTED by Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment filed December 6, 2019. CV-18-001613 – AUTOVEST LLC VS GORDON, DAVID – Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment – GRANTED. CV-18-001619 – AUTOVEST LLC VS HARGROVE, JESSICA – Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment and Dismiss Action – DENIED. This Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the relief Plaintiff requests.

  • Hearing

WU, ET AL. V. WANG, ET AL.

Varum, et al. in San Francisco County Superior Court (the “Berger Action”) (Exhibit 12); (14) Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment in the case entitled Mirov v. Berger, et al. in San Francisco County Superior Court (Exhibit 14); and (15) proposed amended complaint in the Berger Action (Exhibit 15). All items except for Exhibits 10, 11 and 12 are either court records or recorded real property records. As such, they are proper subjects of judicial notice. (Evid. Code, § 452, subds.

  • Hearing

SRABIAN V CHIARITO

Buehner to Compel Morris and Lucille Srabian to Issue Acknowledgement of Full Satisfaction of March 4, 2019 Judgment (or, in the Alternative, to Have Clerk Enter Same) and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 724.050 Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion to compel plaintiffs and cross-defendants Morris and Lucille Srabian (“the Srabians”) to issue acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment, or, in the alternative, to have the clerk of the Court enter the same, on the ground

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.