Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment in California

What Is an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment?

When a money judgment is satisfied, the judgment creditor shall immediately file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 724.030; Horath v. Hess (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 456, 468.) If a judgment creditor fails to file the acknowledgment immediately, the judgment debtor may mail a demand that creditor file an acknowledgment. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 724.050.) If the judgment creditor does not comply, the judgment debtor may seek an order acknowledging satisfaction of judgment. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 724.050(d); Schumacher v. Ayerve (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1860, 1863.) Section 724.050 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides the sole statutory procedure to require a judgment creditor to file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment or, if he or she refuses, to obtain a satisfaction of judgment entered by the court clerk. (Quintana v. Gibson (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 89, 91.)

Legal Standard

A court may only order satisfaction of judgment when a judgment has been satisfied in fact by full payment or release. (Schumaker v. Ayerve (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1860, 1863.) “A money judgment may be satisfied by payment of the full amount required to satisfy the judgment or by acceptance by the judgment creditor of a lesser sum in full satisfaction of the judgment.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 724.010(a).) “This section has been interpreted to require the trial court to first determine whether the judgment has been satisfied in fact before ordering entry of satisfaction of judgment.” (Schumacher v. Ayerve (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1860, 1863.)

When a judgment debtor files a motion for acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment, the court may determine whether there was an agreement for satisfaction of the judgment by payment of less than the full amount of the judgment. (Horath v. Hess (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 456, 467.) If a contract is susceptible to two different reasonable interpretations, the contract is ambiguous. (Id. at 464; Walton v. Mueller (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 161, 174.)

“Payment to a judgment creditor is governed by the cases and statutes which govern commercial transactions. Like a contract creditor, a judgment creditor may demand payment in cash.” (Long v. Cuttle Constr. Co. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 834, 837.) Nonetheless, a judgment creditor may agree to accept some other consideration in satisfaction of the judgment. (Rettner v. Shepherd (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 943, 950.) “The acceptance of any valuable thing in discharge of the debt amounts to payment, but it is the distinct agreement of the creditor to accept the thing in discharge of the debt that gives it the character of payment. Without this, the transaction is regarded either as furnishing matter of setoff or as security collateral to the original debt, according as the subject received is in possession or in action.” (Strain v. Security Title Ins. Co. (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 195, 200.)

Set Aside

A satisfaction of judgment which has been filed and entered may be set aside by appropriate proceedings and for proper cause; fraud, undue influence, and mistake are the generally recognized grounds for vacating a satisfaction of judgment. (Remillard Brick Co. v. Dandini (1950) 98 Cal. App. 2d 617, 622.) Where a satisfaction of judgment has been erroneously entered, it may be cancelled either upon motion made in the original action or by means of an independent action in equity between the parties. (Kinnison v. Guar. Liquidating Corp. (1941) 18 Cal. 2d 256, 265.) A satisfaction of judgment may be vacated and the judgment revived under appropriate circumstances. (Kachiq v. Boothe (1971) 22 Cal. App. 3d 626, 632.)

Rulings for Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment in California

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”).

  • Name

    METROPOLITAN ADJUSTMENT BUREAU VS ZEILON, ROBERT L.

  • Case No.

    12Y00397

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Notice And Motion To Vacate Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment Set for hearing on Tuesday, October 25, 2011, Line 5, PLAINTIFF CREDITORS TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC., DBA GREAT COLLECTION BUREAU'S Notice And Motion To Vacate Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment - Plaintiff Creditors Trade Association?s Motion to Vacate Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment is Granted. No opposition filed.

  • Name

    CREDITORS TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC., DBA GREAT VS. SUHAIL ELIAS KHOURY, INDIVIDUALLY DBA E & E MARKET ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC10501951

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2011

In this case, the Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment was inadvertently filed based on misinformation provided to counsel. As noted in the moving papers: As set forth in the Declaration of Joleen New, filed herewith, on March 16, 2017, Sacor Financial, Inc., the assignee of Record of the judgment herein...received a check from a title company to satisfy the judgment in this case.

  • Name

    BLYTHE VENTURES, INC. VS. JONES, NORA

  • Case No.

    06C00690

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Moition For Order Compelling Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment (Control Date) Matter on calendar for Wednesday, June 17, 2015, Line 2, Motion For Order Compelling Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment. Off calendar as a duplicate entry. =(302/EHG)

  • Name

    JOHNA PECOT ET AL VS. SAN FRANCISCO DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, A ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC10501168

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2015

Case Number: BC635357 Hearing Date: January 4, 2024 Dept: 52 Judgment Debtor Mimi Park, aka Mi Jin Kims Motion to Compel Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment Judgment debtor Mimi Park aka Mi Jin Kim moves under Code of Civil Procedure section 724.050 to compel judgment creditor FCP Brands, Inc. to file acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment.

  • Name

    FCP BRANDS INC VS JOHNNY CHOI ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC635357

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Notice Of Motion To Compel Pltf To File Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment Matter on calendar for Tuesday, December 18, 2012, Line 10, DEFENDANT SF GREEN CAB LLC'S Motion To Compel Plaintiff To File Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment. The matter is off calendar per the request of the moving party. = (302/MJM)

  • Name

    AMY BRIGGS VS. SF GREEN CAB LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC11512759

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2012

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Vacate Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment-Full Made In Error Ccp Section 473 And Ccp Section 1008 Set for hearing on Monday, September 12, 2016, Line 9, PLAINTIFF ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC.'S Motion To Vacate Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment-Full Made In Error CCP Section 473 And CCP Section 1008. Plaintiff's motion to vacate acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment is granted. No opposition filed and good cause shown.

  • Name

    ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC. VS. HELMUT RAGNITZ ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC16550039

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2016

satisfaction of judgment with the court. (2) Execute, acknowledge, and deliver an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment to the person who made the demand.

  • Name

    EVERS V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01080359

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2021

Here, where Plaintiff delayed more than eight years from the discovery of the alleged fraud before resuming action to set aside an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment, Plaintiff did not diligently seek relief. Accordingly, the Court must deny the Motion to Set Aside Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment.

  • Name

    ISAD -PANA VS. EGHTESAD

  • Case No.

    MSC03-02448

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2017

Jennifer Anne Liu BC614019 Order Re: Defendant’s Motion To Compel Plaintiff To File Acknowledgment of Satisfation of Judgment The Court grants defendant’s motion To Compel Plaintiff to File an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment and for sanction.

  • Name

    STACY VUONG VS JENNIFER ANNE LIU ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC614019

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2019

  • Judge

    H. Chester Horn

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

Until such time as all amounts ordered paid by Plaintiff to Defendant have in fact been paid and received, any motion for Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment is premature.

  • Name

    DALE LAUE V. LILIANA ORTIZ

  • Case No.

    2013-1-CV-250570

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2016

Notice Of Motion And Moiton To Compel Compliance With Demand For Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment Matter on calendar for Monday, December 23, 2013, Line 4: RESPONDENTS MICHELE ARMANINO'S and LALANNE LLC'S Moiton To Compel Compliance With Demand For Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment The motion is continued to January 28, 2014, on the Court's motion.

  • Name

    ROBERT LALANNE VS. MICHELE ARMANINO ET AL

  • Case No.

    CPF13513216

  • Hearing

    Dec 23, 2013

On December 10, 2018, Plaintiff National Enterprises, Inc. filed an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment as to Johnsen. (See 12/10/18 Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment.) For this reason, there is no longer any basis to order a sale of Johnsen’s dwelling because she has satisfied her judgment debt. The OSC Hearing re: Sale of Dwelling is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR as MOOT. Court clerk is to give notice.

  • Name

    NATIONAL ENTERPRISES INC VS JOHNSEN, GORDON M

  • Case No.

    07K02824

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2019

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Ntc And Motion To Vacate Renewal Of Judgment And Compel Execution And Service Of Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment SET FOR HEARING ON FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2007, LINE 3 DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER E. GRELL IND DBA LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTO'S Notice And Motion To Vacate Renewal Of Judgment And Compel Execution And Service Of Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment IS DENIED. THERE HAS BEEN NO APPLICATION TO RENEW THE JUDGMENT AND SO THERE IS NO RENEWAL JUDGMENT OF FILE.

  • Name

    BENEDETTO VS GRELL

  • Case No.

    CGC01322696

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2007

("Plaintiff") file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment (full) with the Court; and (ii) Plaintiff execute, acknowledge and deliver to Defendants an acknowledgment ofsatisfaction of judgment (full) in recordable form; and for an order that Plaintiff pay attorneys fees in the sum of $ 3,575.00 or according to proof, and costs in the sum of $60.00 incurred by Defendants, on the grounds that the judgment as entered has been satisfied in full; that demand for acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment per

  • Name

    REXEL INC VS EMPOWERED ENERGY SOLUTIONS INC

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00020408-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2018

Defendant Dean Seniff'S Motion To Compel Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment And Request For Monetary Sanctions And Penalty Matter on calendar for Tuesday, June 10, 2011, Line 6, DEFENDANT DEAN SENIFF'S Motion To Compel Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment And Request For Monetary Sanctions And Penalty. Off calendar as moot. Plaintiff filed a satisfaction of judgment on June 25, 2012.

  • Name

    STEPHEN WU VS. DEAN SENIFF ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC09495707

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2012

Here, on September 22, 2014, Miller served Clark with a written demand for acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. However, although Clark filed an acknowledgment of partial satisfaction of judgment, it is undisputed that Clark has failed to file an acknowledgment of full satisfaction of judgment.

  • Name

    IRWIN R MILLER VS. EDWARD L CLARK

  • Case No.

    56-2011-00407071-CU-BC-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2015

MOTION FOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff claims Defendant still owes an additional $1,050.49 in post-judgment costs, as detailed in the Memorandum of Costs filed on October 25, 2018. However, this amount is less than the amount Defendant overpaid on the judgment ($1,962.21), which means Defendant has satisfied the judgment and Plaintiff should have filed an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., §724.030.)

  • Name

    WORLD WINE BOTTLES LLC V. TERRAVANT WINE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    26-68226

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2018

On the contrary, it made numerous attempts to file the Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment. As such, penalties and attorneys' fees are not appropriately awarded. IT IS SO ORDERED. This ruling is the order of the Court, filed as of this date. No formal order is required.

  • Name

    TRIUMPH PARTNERSHIPS LLC VS. LARRY YACKLEY

  • Case No.

    37-2008-00050665-CL-CL-NC

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2017

That section states that, if a money judgment has been satisfied, the judgment debtor . . . may serve personally or by mail on the judgment creditor a demand in writing that the judgment creditor do one or both of the following: (1) file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment with the court [or] (2) execute, acknowledge, and deliver an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment to the person who made the demand.

  • Name

    SHAHROUZ JAHANSHAHI VS RODNEY T LEWIN

  • Case No.

    BC644230

  • Hearing

    Apr 21, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    INFO TECH CORPORATION VS CALIFORNIA LAWYERS GROUP LLP

  • Case No.

    BC563358

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

Notice Of Motion And Moiton To Compel Compliance With Demand For Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment Matter on calendar for Wednesday, December 4, 2013, Line 9: RESPONDENTS MICHELE ARMANINO'S and LALANNE LLC'S Motion To Compel Compliance With Demand For Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment The motion is continued to December 23, 2013, to give the moving party a chance to comply with San Francisco Local Rule 2.6B.

  • Name

    ROBERT LALANNE VS. MICHELE ARMANINO ET AL

  • Case No.

    CPF13513216

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2013

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment Set for hearing on Tuesday, December 27, 2016, Line 1, PETITIONER BALBOA INSURANCE COMPANY'S Motion To Compel Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment. The motion, to which no opposition was filed, is GRANTED.

  • Name

    BALBOA INSURANCE COMPANY VS. ADRIENNE THOMAS

  • Case No.

    CPF14513800

  • Hearing

    Dec 27, 2016

s unopposed motion to set aside the Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment is granted. The Court deems the lack of opposition to the motion to be a concession as to the merits of the motion. Furthermore, a satisfaction of judgment which has been filed and entered may be set aside by appropriate proceedings and for proper cause. Fraud, undue influence, and mistake are the generally recognized grounds for vacating a satisfaction of judgment. Remillard Brick Co. v. Dandini (1950) 98 Cal.

  • Name

    MERCY AIR SERVICE INC VS. SCHRITTER

  • Case No.

    37-2015-00022740-CU-CL-NC

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2017

The default judgment entered on October 13, 2020, is hereby SET ASIDE and VACATED. The acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment filed on April 5, 2021, is hereby SET ASIDE. The case is dismissed with prejudice at plaintiff's request.

  • Name

    WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. VS SUNDBY

  • Case No.

    RG19007296

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2021

SC045301 Related to Case No. 18SMCV00199 Hearing Date June 24, 2022 Motion for an Order Compelling the Immediate Filing of Satisfactions of Judgment Defendants fully paid plaintiffs judgment, but plaintiff failed to file satisfaction of judgment or release the judgment lien. Defendants move for an order compelling the filing of the satisfactions of judgment. When a money judgment is satisfied, the judgment creditor shall immediately file with the court an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment.

  • Name

    WAYNE HAGENDORF VS GARY CONWAY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    SC045301

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

, and deliver an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment to the person who made the demand.”

  • Name

    JUANA ROMAN VS AMERICAN BEAUTY COLLEGE

  • Case No.

    KC064485

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2016

Stonehaven obtained a judgment on the cross-complaint. Cross-Defendant Arthur R. Aslanian now moves to compel Stonehaven to file an acknowledgement of satisfaction of the judgment. TENTATIVE RULING: Cross-Defendant Arthur R. Aslanian’s motion to compel acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment is DENIED. DISCUSSION: Motion to Compel Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment Request for Judicial Notice Cross-Defendant Arthur R.

  • Name

    4402 MAMMOTH INVESTORS LLC VS STONEHAVEN LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC656986

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Section 724.050 states, in pertinent part, (a) If a money judgment has been satisfied, the judgment debtor… may serve personally or by mail on the judgment creditor a demand in writing that the judgment creditor do one or both of the following: (1) File an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment with the court. (2) Execute, acknowledge, and deliver an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment to the person who made the demand.

  • Name

    CITIBANK, N.A. VS WILLIAMS

  • Case No.

    MCV-252959

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2023

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Creditor To Execute Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment Matter on calendar for Thursday, May 15, 2014, Line 4, DEFENDANTs MATTHEW DAVIS and REEAH DAVIS' Motion To Compel Creditor To Execute Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment. Denied in light of the Court's ruling granting Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Order Granting Motion to Strike Costs.

  • Name

    CMC INVESTMENTS INC. DBA DOLLAR RENT A CAR VS. MATTHEW DAVIS ET AL

  • Case No.

    CPF11511670

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2014

of Satisfaction of Judgment in Full, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Declaration of Joshua G Hamilton, 08/31/2021 APPEARANCES Joshua G.

  • Case No.

    2017-00505141

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2021

Defendant filed a proposed judgment, and judgment was entered on February 6, 2019. On August 12, 2019, defendant sent plaintiff a cashier’s check for $43,611.25. 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.

  • Name

    DALE REICHENEDER VS JENNIFER VENCILL

  • Case No.

    SC129766

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

of judgment with the court. (2) Execute, acknowledge, and deliver an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment to the person who made the demand.

  • Name

    SHERIFF PLUMBING INC. VS KENNETH GRAY

  • Case No.

    KC067580

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2017

A default judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff Metropolitan Adjustment Bureau Corp. (“Plaintiff”) and against Defendant Robert Zeilon (“Defendant”) on August 23, 2012. Plaintiff subsequently filed an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment on January 30, 2019.

  • Name

    METROPOLITAN ADJUSTMENT BUREAU VS ZEILON, ROBERT L.

  • Case No.

    12Y00397

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendants move for an order compelling BHE to release the abstract of judgment by filing a notice of satisfaction of judgment. “If an abstract of a money judgment has been recorded with the recorder of any county and the judgment is satisfied,” the judgment creditor must file and serve an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §724.040. A court may only order satisfaction of judgment when a judgment has been satisfied in fact by full payment or release. Schumaker v.

  • Name

    BEVERLY HILLS ESTATE VS. MARTIN WARNER ET. AL.

  • Case No.

    SC120070

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2019

On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Full Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment, notifying this Court that Defendant had paid the judgment entered on November 26, 2018, in full. On June 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Order Vacating and Setting Aside Acknowledgment of Full Satisfaction of Judgment, accompanied by the Declaration of Martin F. Goldman.

  • Name

    HOREB BOBCAT SERVICE & RENTAL, INC. VS. GILAD AVIDOR INCORPO

  • Case No.

    LC106496

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The judgment creditor filed an "Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment" indicating he has "accepted payment or performance other than that specified in the judgment in full satisfaction of the judgment."

  • Name

    ALEX GILANIANS VS. ARMEN B. ASSARIAN

  • Case No.

    EC051051

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment And Request For Monetary Sanctions And Penalty Set for hearing on Tuesday, May 29, 2012, Line 4. DEFENDANT DEAN SENIFF Motion To Compel Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment And Request For Monetary Sanctions And Penalty. Granted. Plaintiff's counsel is required to pay $980 to defendant no later than June 15, 2012. In the context of this case, the interest shortfall of $17.17 is a trifle.

  • Name

    STEPHEN WU VS. DEAN SENIFF ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC09495707

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2012

The court finds that attorney Jack Scully acted with just cause in refusing to execute an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. (CCP 724.050(e).) Moving parties to give notice.

  • Case No.

    Yomtoubian vs. Camellia Diamonds Ltd. 30-2009-00119619-CU-OR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2016

The court finds that attorney Jack Scully acted with just cause in refusing to execute an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. (CCP 724.050(e).) Moving parties to give notice.

  • Name

    YOMTOUBIAN VS. CAMELLIA DIAMONDS LTD.

  • Case No.

    30-2009-00119619-CU-OR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2016

A judgment creditor cannot indefinitely postpone an acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment simply by refusing to cash a debtor’s check. The court is allowed, and indeed required, to enter a satisfaction of judgment after the debtor pays the full amount of the judgment and the creditor refuses to execute an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. Therefore, the court intends to grant respondent’s motion for entry of an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment.

  • Name

    SMARTMED, INC. VS FIRST CHOICE MEDICAL GROUP, INC.

  • Case No.

    17CECG01179

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2023

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

Motion: Compel Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment. Ruling: Off-calendar. Filing fees not paid.

  • Name

    PETRIK VS. MAHAFFEY

  • Case No.

    05CC10571

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2017

This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 724.050, which permits a judgment debtor to serve a demand that the judgment creditor prepare and file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. If the judgment creditor does not comply with this demand, the judgment debtor "may apply to the court on noticed motion for an order requiring the judgment creditor to comply with the demand." Id. at (d).

  • Name

    PACIFICA COMPANIES LLC VS. PATEL

  • Case No.

    37-2012-00092404-CU-NP-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2018

Acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment filed on 7/28/17.

  • Name

    SHARIFI VS. THE TARRANT FAMILY TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 2003

  • Case No.

    30-2015-00802490-CU-PT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2017

MOTION To Set Aside The Recorded Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment GRANT-NO OPPOSITION FILED.(302/REQ/JU)

  • Name

    FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY VS. JUE, LELAND ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC00181244

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2005

On the Court’s own motion, Defendant and Judgment Debtor Susan G. Snow’s Motion to Compel Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment, etc. is CONTINUED to Wed., March 14, 2018, 3:00 p.m., Courtroom 19.

  • Name

    TIMBERLAND V. SNOW

  • Case No.

    SCV-257269

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2018

  • Judge

    Richard J. Henderson for the Hon. Allan D. Hardcastle

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

Plaintiff satisfied the Judgment for Costs. Defendant filed an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment. The Judgment Debtor Examination was vacated.

  • Name

    NGUYEN VS. TRAN

  • Case No.

    30-2014-00729544-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2017

Court notes that an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment, indicating that judgment has been paid in full, was filed on December 13, 2021.

  • Name

    AUTO RESOURCES VS NATESSA WINSTON

  • Case No.

    21CV-01460

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2022

  • County

    Merced County, CA

Furthermore, because Hayman filed an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment and the Court deemed the judgment satisfied, Plaintiff was successful in asserting this position and received a benefit from it. The legal effect of having a party file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment is that the judgment creditor can no longer take any actions to collect from the judgment debtor. ( Brochier v. Brochier (1941) 17 Cal.2d 822, 825.)

  • Name

    MICHAEL TREIMAN VS HAYMAN HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV23353

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Respondents’ Motion to Compel Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment is DENIED as premature. There is as yet no Judgment entered in this matter subject to Acknowledgment of Satisfaction. Petitioners shall submit a Proposed Judgment in accordance herewith.

  • Name

    YING ZHANG, ET AL. VS FUTIM G. MAK, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19GDCP00098

  • Hearing

    May 24, 2019

"When a money judgment is satisfied, the judgment creditor immediately shall file with the court an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment." (CCP §724.030.) If a judgment has been satisfied, and no acknowledgement of satisfication of judgment has been filed, the judgment creditor may demand in writing that the judgment creditor execute, acknowledge, and deliver an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment to the person who made the demand. (CCP §724.050(a)(2).)

  • Name

    K & K CAPITAL INVESTMENTS VS. IPC (USA), INC.

  • Case No.

    56-2008-00320140-CU-NP-VTA

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2014

The Court notes plaintiff filed an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment in Full on June 14, 2022.

  • Name

    AMARR GARAGE DOORS VS JONATHAN MENDOZA

  • Case No.

    22CV-00414

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2022

  • County

    Merced County, CA

The Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment filed on August 11, 2017 in Case Number 17CV01035 was inadvertently filed in the wrong case. The Court will execute an Order Striking Filing. No appearance is necessary.

  • Name

    PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOC VS MCDONALD, MIKE

  • Case No.

    17CV01035

  • Hearing

    Apr 10, 2019

The Court notes that an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment in full was filed on March 23, 2023.

  • Name

    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS JOHN KUDULIS

  • Case No.

    21CV-00159

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2023

  • County

    Merced County, CA

MCV-000251, Looney v Yamashiro, LLC Plaintiff’s motion to appoint a receiver to seize the judgment debtor’s liquor license to satisfy the judgment is DROPPED as MOOT. On October 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment acknowledging that the judgment has been satisfied in full and the defendants have been released.

  • Name

    LOONEY VS YAMASHIRO, LLC

  • Case No.

    MCV-000251

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2023

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

.: 37-2019-00009803-CU-CO-CTL CASE TITLE: GF GALAXY CORPORATION VS DOT VN INC [IMAGED] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Contract - Other EVENT TYPE: Motion Hearing (Civil) CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 08/16/2023 Defendant Phuoc Lee Johnson's Motion to Compel Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment (ROA 168) is ordered VACATED. Plaintiff has appealed the court's ruling partially granting Defendant's motion to tax costs. The appeal is currently pending.

  • Name

    GF GALAXY CORPORATION VS DOT VN INC

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00009803-CU-CO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Dec 22, 2023

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

DEF Anthony Farragh Motion to Vacate This matter appears moot based on the recent filing of an “acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment”. If any party believes the motion remains viable, they shall appear and argue accordingly. Otherwise the motion will be denied.

  • Name

    TOLERICO VS. FARRAGH

  • Case No.

    30-2008-00113295

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2021

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Remittitur filed after reversal by Court of Appeal Rulings: Costco’s motion for acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment is granted under section 724.050; Costco shall recover its costs on appeal. Costco is not entitled to recover the attorney fees it has incurred in its successful effort to have Lisec repudiated.

  • Name

    CIFUENTES VS COSTCO

  • Case No.

    1338554

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2016

On April 12, 2018, the title insurer took the position that the Public Administrator could not prove that the judgment lien against decedent's ex-husband had not been satisfied. No acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment is known to exist. No family member is aware of the judgment having been satisfied. The estate's judgment lien was nevertheless wrongfully dishonored upon the judgment debtor's conveyance of the asset.

  • Name

    IN THE MATTER OF BERTHA TELLO

  • Case No.

    56-2017-00499656-PR-LA-OXN

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2018

Plaintiff has not responded to the aforesaid August 14, 2023 letter by filing a partial acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment as of the October 16, 2023 motion filing date. ( Id. , ¶ 9). The motion is granted. Plaintiff is to deliver an acknowledgment of partial satisfaction of judgment in the amount of $15,000.00 to Colorado within 10 days from the date of the hearing.

  • Name

    JOHN RODRIGUEZ VS CITY OF IRWINDALE ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC665690

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Tax Costs Sought By Judgment Asignee Christopher Andreas Matter on Calendar for Tuesday , January 7, 2014, Line 4, RESPONDENTS MICHELE ARMANINO, LALANNE LLC'S Motion To Tax Costs Sought By Judgment Asignee Christopher Andreas Continued on the Court's own motion to January 28, 2014 to be heard on the same date as the Motion to Compel Compliance with Demand for Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment.

  • Name

    ROBERT LALANNE VS. MICHELE ARMANINO ET AL

  • Case No.

    CPF13513216

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2014

Defendant/judgment debtor’s motion to withdraw and cancel abstract of judgment. No opposition. Motion denied, without prejudice. Moving party has failed to provide the court with authority supporting the court’s power to “withdraw” or “cancel” an abstract of judgment. An abstract of judgment can be only extinguished by an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment or by the judgment creditor’s release of the lien. See, Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Charlton (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1070.

  • Name

    AMERICAN MODERN HOME INS CO VS FAHMIAN

  • Case No.

    05CC12158

  • Hearing

    Jan 01, 2017

of satisfaction of judgment with the court;” and/or “(2) Execute, acknowledge, and deliver an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment to the person who made the demand.”

  • Name

    TIMBERLAND V. SNOW

  • Case No.

    SCV-257269

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2018

The court notes that Defendants motion is procedurally defective, as Defendant does not submit evidence showing that Defendant served a demand on Plaintiffs that they either (1) File an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment with the court, or (2) Execute, acknowledge, and deliver an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment to the person who made the demand. [1] (CCP § 724.050(a).)

  • Name

    SAJJAD TAKALLOU, ET AL. VS ELAINE MUNOZ

  • Case No.

    18STCV04181

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(2) Execute, acknowledge, and deliver an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment to the person who made the demand. (b) The demand shall include the following statement: Important warning. If this judgment has been satisfied, the law requires that you comply with this demand not later than 15 days after you receive it.

  • Name

    KAVOOS ROSTAMI VS JOHN ANDRADE

  • Case No.

    BC453138

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(2) Execute, acknowledge, and deliver an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment to the person who made the demand. (b) The demand shall include the following statement: Important warning. If this judgment has been satisfied, the law requires that you comply with this demand not later than 15 days after you receive it.

  • Name

    KAVOOS ROSTAMI VS JOHN ANDRADE

  • Case No.

    BC453138

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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).

  • Name

    UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION VS. IBARRA

  • Case No.

    37-2015-00016315-CU-IC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2019

Motion: Compel Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment. Moving Party Defendant Douglas Mahaffey. Responding Party Judgment Creditor Berger Kahn. Opposition filed. Ruling: Defendant Mahaffey’s Motion to Compel Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment is DENIED. The Request for Sanctions and Attorney Fees is DENIED. The Request for refund of payments made is DENIED. Based upon CCP 666, the court extinguishes the sanction award for $6,963.00 payable to Plaintiffs Petrik.

  • Name

    PETRIK VS. MAHAFFEY

  • Case No.

    05CC10571

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2017

Mtn To Compel Further Responses Set for hearing on Thursday, August 29, 2013, Line 1, PLAINTIFF INVESTEK PROPERTIES COMPANY LLC, INVESTEK PROPERTIES COMPANY, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP Mtn To Compel Further Responses Continued on the court's own motion to be heard on September 30, 2013 at 9:00 am in Department 302 to be heard after the Motion for Order Requiring Plaintiff to Comply with Demand for Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment that is currently set for September 13, 2013.

  • Name

    INVESTEK PROPERTIES VS ALTA MESA WIND

  • Case No.

    CGC99306249

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2013

On November 15, 2016, counsel for Loancare made a demand for satisfaction of judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Proc., § 724.040 (“If an abstract of a money judgment has been recorded with the recorder of any county and the judgment is satisfied, the judgment creditor shall immediately do both of the following: (a) File an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment with the court. (b) Serve an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment on the judgment debtor. Service shall be made personally or by mail.”)

  • Name

    ATTORNEY COLLECTION SERVICES, VS. PIERCE, D`ARTAGNAN D.

  • Case No.

    00CT2883

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Georgina Torres Rizk

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion of Defendant for Order Entering Satisfaction of Judgment and for Attorney's Fees and Damages is DENIED. Pursuant to CCP section 724.050, Defendant demanded the filing of an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment after it paid the judgment for $7,000. However, CCP section 724.050(b) provides the judgment debtor's demand shall include the following statement: "Important warning.

  • Name

    FORTNER VS CONTE

  • Case No.

    37-2015-00040195-CU-PA-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2018

On April 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment indicating that Defendant has fully satisfied the default judgment that was entered on June 16, 2021 (Satisfaction of Judgment). II. Discussion Based on the Satisfaction of Judgment, the Motion is now moot. III. Conclusion & Order The motion is placed off-calendar as moot. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Name

    MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY VS MARTIN BALTAZAR

  • Case No.

    21STLC01161

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On June 16, 2021, Judgment Creditor filed a full acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment by Judgment Debtor. (EJ-100 filed 6/16/21.) On July 2, 2021, the Court Clerk re-set the instant motion for October 12, 2021. As Judgment Creditor has filed an acknowledgment of full satisfaction of judgment, there is no purpose for an assignment order. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Based on the foregoing, Judgment Creditor Hospice Source LLC’s motion for assignment order is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT.

  • Name

    HOSPICE SOURCE LLC VS ALL SEASONS HEALTHCARE INC.

  • Case No.

    21STCP00958

  • Hearing

    Oct 12, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Paragraph III, vi, of the agreement states: “MCKILLOP and INNLEY will execute an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment in favor of WALLACE and HHOMC and WALLACE and HHOMC shall execute an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment in favor of MCKILLOP and INNLEY in case number YC070181.” Thus, the plain language of the agreement demonstrates the parties agreed that the amount set forth in the settlement encompassed all amounts that were set forth in the second amended judgment.

  • Name

    MCKILLOP VS WALLACE

  • Case No.

    YC070181

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendant filed the instant Motion to Set Aside the Entry of Default and Default Judgment (the “Motion”) on June 22, 2018. At the previous hearing on this Motion, the Court continued it to allow Defendant to file supplemental papers to address certain defects the Court identified. To date, no such supplemental papers have been filed. The Court notes that on November 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment. For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR.

  • Name

    INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE VS CIFUENTES, RONALD

  • Case No.

    17K03504

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2018

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Motion to Compel Satisfaction of Judgment Defendant initially brought his motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 724.050, which allows a judgment debtor to serve a demand on the judgment creditor to do one of the following two things if a money judgment has been satisfied: 1) file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment with the court; or 2) execute, acknowledge, and deliver an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment to the person who made the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 724.050, subd. (a).)

  • Case No.

    GIC874841

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2023

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

(2) Execute, acknowledge, and deliver an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment to the person who made the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 724.050, subd. (a).) Mrs. Billingsley contends that she is entitled to an acknowledgement of satisfaction because she has satisfied her portion of the obligation, i.e., $0.00 of the total amount owed to plaintiff, $3,436,120. However, plaintiff argues that Mrs.

  • Name

    PNC BANK, N.A. VS. MATTHEW BILLINGSLEY

  • Case No.

    21CECG02603

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2023

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

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.

  • Name

    HODGE V. PEIK

  • Case No.

    CU17-082542

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2019

In addition, Plaintiff/Judgment creditor filed a notice of acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment on June 4, 2021.

  • Name

    GARGIR FINANCIAL SERVICES VS THE ABAS GROUP, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20SMCV00476

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2021

  • Judge

    Timothy Lee Johnson

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On July 14, 2021, Aspire filed this motion for an order compelling Respondents to file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. Respondents filed an opposition on August 4, 2021. Aspire filed a reply on August 9, 2021. Where a judgment has been satisfied, but the judgment creditor refuses to file an acknowledgment of this satisfaction, Code of Civil Procedure section 724.050 provides the relevant procedure for obtaining such an acknowledgement by court order.

  • Name

    ASPIRE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS JOSE GARCIA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV25145

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(2) Execute, acknowledge, and deliver an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment to the person who made the demand.” As provided above, Defendant would need to bring a motion under CCP § 724.050 (with proof of full payment of the judgment) to have Plaintiff file a satisfaction of judgment to resolve the issue presented in the Motion—a motion to vacate a renewal of judgment is not the proper procedure.

  • Name

    COAST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPA VS MENDOZA, ANTONIO MOISES

  • Case No.

    07CJ3424

  • Hearing

    Apr 23, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

of satisfaction of judgment because those fees and costs were incurred before Plaintiff violated the claimed deadline.

  • Name

    BECKER VS TADLOCK

  • Case No.

    56-2013-00434082-CL-EN-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2014

In this case, the court already granted a motion to enforce the settlement agreement under CCP § 664.6 on April 4, 2018 and entered judgment in accordance with the written settlement agreement. On August 22, 2018, plaintiff filed an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment, indicating the judgment was satisfied in full.

  • Name

    CREDITORS SPECIALTY SERVICE, INC. VS. JUAN JOSE CUBERO, ET

  • Case No.

    EC065617

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2018

In the Court’s view, this action is nothing more than a demand for acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment, per the statutory procedure found in Code of Civil Procedure § 724.050(d), which requires a noticed motion to obtain such an order. As that section provides the exclusive statutory basis for demanding satisfaction of judgment, Quintana v. Gibson (2003) 113 Cal.

  • Name

    JOHN PARK VS HYEON JOO PARK ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC621285

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2017

On October 14, 2020, following the latest continuance, Plaintiff filed an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment indicating that Plaintiff has accepted Defendant’s payment as full satisfaction of judgment and has released her from any further obligation. In light of Defendant’s full satisfaction of the judgment, her motion to vacate the judgment and stay its enforcement is MOOT. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is taken OFF CALENDAR as MOOT. Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

  • Name

    PROPERTY REHAB TRUST, LLC VS SHARON BABB, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCP03667

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

Judgment debtor is not entitled to an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment until the judgment has been paid in full. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 724.010, subd. (a).) Judgment creditor to give notice.

  • Name

    TWO WORLDS, INC. VS. JOHNSON

  • Case No.

    30-2008-00111817-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2017

Counsel for plaintiff to file Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment once funds are received. DATE: 08/16/2022 MINUTE ORDER Page 1 DEPT: 43 VEN-FNR-10.03

  • Case No.

    2021-00556851

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2022

CCP §724.050(a) provides: “If a money judgment has been satisfied, the judgment debtor … may serve personally or by mail on the judgment creditor a demand in writing that the judgment creditor do one or both of the following: (1) File an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment with the court; (2) Execute, acknowledge, and deliver an acknowledgment of satisfaction of Page 3 of 5 judgment to the person who made the demand.” A judgment creditor is required to comply within 15 days of receipt of the demand.

  • Name

    TBF FINANCIAL I LLC VS HEMET SAN JACINTO VALLEY CH

  • Case No.

    RIC1707490

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

As a Motion to Compel Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment Even if the court were to consider the instant motion as one to compel acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment, the instant motion still fails. Judgment Debtor Davies fails to show that the judgment was satisfied. Instead, Judgment Debtor Davies provides only a conclusory declaration. Specifically, Judgment Debtor Davies states in full that “[t]his action was filed against me and my partner Nicholas Limer in 2011.

  • Name

    ROBERT MCKENNA ET AL VS DAVID DAVIES ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC451589

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

That same day, the Court entered a judgment in favor of Plaintiff Gerard Facchini (“Plaintiff”) and against Defendant Showfx, Inc. (“Defendant”) in the amount of $8,758.90. The Labor Commissioner filed an acknowledgment of full satisfaction of judgment on January 30, 2020. On March 5, 2021, the Labor Commissioner filed the instant Motion to Set Aside and/or Strike Erroneously filed Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment (the “Motion”). No Opposition was filed.

  • Name

    GERARD FACCHINI VS SHOWFX , INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    17STCP01281

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

days after full satisfaction of judgment.

  • Name

    RICARDO PRADO ET. AL. VS. DARIN STOYTCHEV ET. AL.

  • Case No.

    SC122980

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Scripps is therefore ordered to execute, acknowledge, and deliver an acknowledgment of partial satisfaction of judgment in that amount. However, there is no indication that Calgary has paid the attorney fees and costs that were awarded, and although Calgary removed portions of the LED signs, it did not fully comply with the terms of the non-monetary relief within the stated timeframe. Calgary is therefore not entitled to an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment in full.

  • Name

    SCRIPPS ENERGY LLC VS CALGARY ENTERPRISES

  • Case No.

    37-2022-00017583-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2023

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

The opposition states attorney time was spent opposing Varas first motion to tax, preparing an application to sell the dwelling, engaging in settlement negotiations, drafting a settlement agreement and responding to Varas attempt to obtain an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. Some attorneys fees are recoverable. The total sought is excessive, for example 30 hours spent in June 2023 responding to Varas efforts to obtain a notice for satisfaction of judgment.

  • Name

    SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAND USE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS ALIREZA VARASTEHPOUR, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21SMCP00166

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

In 2015, Plaintiff obtained a judgment against Defendant in the amount of $27,291. According to Defendant, he made payments totaling $49,851, which includes interest and overpayment. Defendant made a demand to file a satisfaction of judgment on Plaintiff's former counsel and his new counsel. Plaintiff has not filed a satisfaction of judgment. Defendant made a demand in writing that Plaintiff (Creditor) file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. (C.C.P., § 724.050(a)(1).)

  • Name

    BATTA VS. ALRAYYAN

  • Case No.

    37-2013-00078020-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2023

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

The judgment was renewed on December 6, 2012 by Plaintiff’s Assignee, LVNV Funding, LLC (“LVNV Funding”). On March 5, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to vacate the default judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d). The motion was denied without prejudice on April 29, 2019. On May 6, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment. On June 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a full Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment.

  • Name

    (NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

  • Case No.

    LAM12CG6441

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    (NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

  • Case No.

    LAM17K02986

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

do one or both of the following: (1) File an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment with the court

  • Name

    JON CARPENTER VS MARTIN M LEE PROPERTIES INC

  • Case No.

    BC423174

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

No proof of service has been filed for the Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment. Also, on 11/7/22, the Samples took their Motion for Attorney Fees which was scheduled for 11/17/22 off calendar. Based on Plaintiffs filing of the Acknowledgment of Full Satisfaction of Judgment, before costs were entered thereon, the Court, on its own motion, strikes Plaintiffs Memorandum of Costs filed on 7/20/22. As such, the instant motion is placed off calendar as moot.

  • Name

    JEFFREY DRUMMEN VS. JULIA SURTSHIN ET. AL.

  • Case No.

    PC058730

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Janeke’s Motion to Compel Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment: The motion appears to be frivolous and/or moot. Allen recorded an unequivocal, notarized acknowledgment of full satisfaction of judgment entered in this action on March 29, 2017. RJN, Exh. B. On September 5, 2017, Allen filed an unequivocal, notarized acknowledgment of full satisfaction of judgment in this case.

  • Name

    CHARLES JANEKE VS JULIETTE Z ALLEN ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC583198

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2017

Causal Document & Date Filed : Petition - Other, 01/12/2018 Initiating petitioner Luis Recharte nominally attempted to specially administer his mother's probate estate in order to obtain acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment on a judgment which had never been satisfied.

  • Name

    IN THE MATTER OF BERTHA TELLO

  • Case No.

    56-2017-00499656-PR-LA-OXN

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2018

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope