Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment?

Useful Rulings on Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment

Recent Rulings on Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment

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

    Jul 14, 2020

(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

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

    Jun 30, 2020

  • 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

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

    May 26, 2020

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

    Feb 24, 2020

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

    Jan 16, 2020

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

    Jan 03, 2020

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

    Dec 19, 2019

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

    Nov 18, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On June 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a full Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment. To date, no opposition has been filed. The Court heard this motion on October 2, 2019, and continued the hearing to this date because Defendant filed no proof of service demonstrating that notice of the motion and hearing were provided to LVNV Funding. 2. Legal Standard “‘[A] void judgment can be attacked at any time by a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d).’ [Citation.]”

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK VS. GARY SINARD

The court takes judicial notice of the fact that a full acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment was filed by plaintiff on 11/1/19, rendering the motion moot. Clerk to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2019

DAN FLOIT VS. WILLIAM CHAPMAN

As for the Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment, it appears DRE is not opposed to Andre filing the Acknowledgment, suggesting it agrees judgment against him as been satisfied. Andre served a CCP § 724.050 demand upon the DRE on September 23, 2019 after this Motion was filed and more than fifteen days have passed and the Acknowledgment has not been filed by DRE.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DAN FLOIT VS. WILLIAM CHAPMAN

As for the Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment, it appears DRE is not opposed to Andre filing the Acknowledgment, suggesting it agrees judgment against him as been satisfied. Andre served a CCP § 724.050 demand upon the DRE on September 23, 2019 after this Motion was filed and more than fifteen days have passed and the Acknowledgment has not been filed by DRE.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION VS. IBARRA

The following documents are set aside and vacated as void: Entry of Default dated January 5, 2016 (ROA # 20); Judgment entered May 4, 2017 (ROA # 25); DL-30 dated December 5, 2017 (ROA # 27); and Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment – Full filed on April 24, 2018 (ROA # 28).

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2019

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On August 29, 2018, Johnson filed a Third Amended Cross-Complaint alleging Corsini breached the agreement by failing to file an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment, or remove the lien on Johnson’s property. On August 12, 2019, Johnson filed a request to dismiss just the lien in the Third Amended Cross-Complaint. The dismissal was entered as to the entire Third Amended Cross-Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On June 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a full Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment. To date, no opposition has been filed. The court initially notes that the motion is not accompanied by proof of service demonstrating that notice of the motion and hearing were provided to LVNV Funding. Failure to give notice of a motion is a violation of the statutory requirements but of due process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005; Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HODGE V. PEIK

Superior Court of Nevada County Tentative Ruling Truckee Branch Defendants' Motion for Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment is granted as prayed. Pursuant to CCP '724.050(d), the court clerk shall enter the Satisfaction of Judgment which was entered on 3/21/19. Defendants are awarded $1,150.00 pursuant to CCP '724.050(e), for failing to comply with the demand to enter the Satisfaction of Judgment.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2019

WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC VS TONIO BLAND

On August 4, 2017, an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment was filed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2019

JACK VAUGHN ET AL VS BARBARA DARWISH ET AL

On August 4, 2017, an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment was filed.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2019

CITY OF SAN DIEGO VS NOTT

App. 5th 473 (2017), the 4th DCA, Div. 3 held that "the phrase 'the judgment is satisfied in full' as used in section 883, subdivision (a) means only at such time as the creditor has filed a full acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. A judgment cannot be satisfied within the meaning of section 883, subdivision (a) until the judgment creditor is paid in full and has no other outstanding claim and the obligation of the judgment debtor has been fully extinguished." Ibid. at 482 (emphasis added).

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BEVERLY HILLS ESTATE VS. MARTIN WARNER ET. AL.

.: SC120070 Motion to Compel Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment Hearing Date: 7-30-2019 Beverly Hills Estate (BHE) filed an unlawful detainer action against Martin and Susan Warner in February 2013. A default judgment was entered in favor of BHE, which recorded an abstract of judgment on all properties owned by the Warners on 4/25/2013. The default was later vacated by the Court of Appeal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2019

TESORO DEL VALLE MASTER HOMEOWNERS VS BALMAIN, FOREST K.

Plaintiff has not filed an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. Further, even if such an acknowledgment had been filed, Defendant may still move to vacate the default and default judgment entered in this case. Plaintiff further contends that Defendant has failed to demonstrate meritorious defense. The Court disagrees. As the California Supreme Court had held, “[o]rdinarily a verified answer to a complaint’s allegations suffices to show [meritorious defense].” (Rappleyea v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

METROPOLITAN ADJUSTMENT BUREAU VS ZEILON, ROBERT L.

MOTION TO VACATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT (CCP § 473(b)) TENTATIVE RULING: Judgment Creditor Metropolitan Adjustment Bureau Corp.’s Motion to Vacate Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment is GRANTED. ANALYSIS: I. Discussion On August 23, 2012, the Court entered a default judgment in favor of Plaintiff Creditor Metropolitan Adjustment Bureau Corp. (“Judgment Creditor”) and against Defendant Robert L. Zeilon (“Judgment Debtor”).

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CITY OF SAN DIEGO VS NOTT

Runyon (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 473,** the 4th DCA, Div. 3 held that "the phrase 'the judgment is satisfied in full' as used in section 883, subdivision (a) means only at such time as the creditor has filed a full acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. A judgment cannot be satisfied within the meaning of section 883, subdivision (a) until the judgment creditor is paid in full and has no other outstanding claim and the obligation of the judgment debtor has been fully extinguished."

  • Hearing

    Jun 13, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.