What is a Quash Writ of Execution?

Useful Rulings on Quash Writ of Execution

Recent Rulings on Quash Writ of Execution

DAVID MINSER V. COLLECT ACCESS, LLC, ZEE LAW GROUP, PC, ET AL.

The Court shall quash and vacate the writ of execution and any levy pursuant thereto and order any property released as to Collect Access. However, the Court shall not quash or vacate the writ or any levy as to ZLG.

  • Hearing

LYLE HOWRY VS REGINALD MYLABATHULA BENJAMIN, ET AL.

It is alleged that, on March 13, 2020, Defendants wrongfully filed a restraining order against Plaintiff to avoid collection on this judgment and writ of execution. Defendants then used the restraining order to their commercial benefit by calling Plaintiff a criminal and claiming that he was dangerous. (Id., ¶ 41.) Defendants used Plaintiff’s name, likeness, or identity to harm him. (Id., ¶ 37.)

  • Hearing

LOS ANGELES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION VS CBOBANNA, INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Motion to Quash at pgs. 6-7, Weldon Decl. ¶¶3-4. Defendant states Zhang was not authorized to accept service. Id. As plaintiff has not refuted this claim, defendant has shown service was invalid, so this court lacked jurisdiction to enter default. GRANTED. Default judgment will be set aside and the writ of execution withdrawn. Defendant’s answer is deemed filed as of 9/18/20. DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR VIA LA COURT CONNECT.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS WEST COAST PLASTICS IN

OPPOSING PARTY: Plaintiff, Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation TRIAL DATE: None – Request for Dismissal filed August 26, 2020 PROOF OF SERVICE: OK MOTION: Motion to Recall and Quash Writ of Execution and Vacate Levy OPPOSITION: October 13, 2020 REPLY: October 20, 2020 TENTATIVE: Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. The January Writ is ordered quashed, and the associated levy is ordered vacated. Plaintiff is ordered to return all funds levied within five days of this date. Defendant is to give notice.

  • Hearing

CALNEV PARTNERS LLC VS. RESIGHINI RANCHERIA

For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to recall the writ of execution and to quash the writ and levy is DENIED. The Fresno County Sheriff's Office is hereby ORDERED to release to Plaintiff the funds in its account that are the subject of the levy.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LYLE HOWRY VS REGINALD MYLABATHULA BENJAMIN, ET AL.

It is alleged that, on March 13, 2020, Defendants wrongfully filed a restraining order against Plaintiff to avoid collection on this judgment and writ of execution. Defendants then used the restraining order to their commercial benefit by calling Plaintiff a criminal and claiming that he was dangerous. (Id., ¶ 41.) Defendants used Plaintiff’s name, likeness, or identity to harm him. (Id., ¶ 37.)

  • Hearing

SUPERIOR COURT VS. YEVGENIY BABICHEVDATE OCTOBER TIME AM LINE NUMBER

Motion to Quash Writ of Execution. Neither of the bases on which the motion rests are valid. III. Conclusion and Order. The motions for reconsideration and to quash the writ of execution are DENIED. The motion of the Kitanoff entities to declare plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant is reset to 29 October 2020 at 9:00 AM in this Department to be heard along with the similar motion filed by the Attorney General. ___________________________ _____________________________________________ DATED: HON.

  • Hearing

INSTANT FINANCING, INC. VS WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL, LLC

Respondent/Judgment Debtor moves to recall and quash the writ of execution on that judgment and to strike/tax accrued interest from a memorandum of costs dated June 30, 2020.[1] Petitioner moves for attorney’s fees.

  • Hearing

SANDFORD VS SANDFORD

Motion to Quash Subpoena and Recall Abstract of Judgment Motion to Quash and Recall Abstract of Judgment The Motion to Quash/Recall brought by Cross-Defendants Paul Sandford and Nancy Sandford is GRANTED. This Motion relies on an interpretation of C.C.P. §917.1(d). Pursuant to C.C.P. §917.1(a)(1), a judgment for money is not stayed by an appeal, unless an undertaking is given.

  • Hearing

SANDFORD VS SANDFORD

Similarly, “[a] writ of execution [abstract of judgment] may be recalled and quashed where the issuance was improperly or inadvertently made. (Meyer v. Meyer (1952) 115 Cal.App.2d 48, 49). Lastly, Plaintiffs/ Cross-Defendants request sanctions against Cross-Complainant and his Counsel, pursuant to C.C.P. §1987.2 and C.C.P. §128.5.

  • Hearing

LAKELAND WEST CAPITAL VIII, LLC VS WILLIAM F. LASKY

As to the turnover order, under CCP § 699.040: “(a) If a writ of execution is issued, the judgment creditor may apply to the court ex parte, or on noticed motion if the court so directs or a court rule so requires, for an order directing the judgment debtor to transfer to the levying officer either or both of the following: (1) Possession of the property sought to be levied upon if the property is sought to be levied upon by taking it into custody.

  • Hearing

HIT SONG PRODUCTIONS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS LARRY WILCOX, ET AL.

On March 2,2020, a writ of execution was issued. (Boris Decl. ¶3, Exh. B.) On March 4, 2020, an abstract of judgment (the "Abstract") was recorded in the Los Angeles County Recorder's office. (Boris Decl. ¶4, Exh. C.) Then on March 5,2020, a judgment lien was filed with the California Secretary of State. (Boris Decl., ¶5, Exh. D.) No part of the judgment has been paid. (Boris Decl.,¶6, Exh. D.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

These efforts included (1) preparing the abstract of judgment, writ of execution and notice of entry of judgment; (2) review of motions to vacate; (3) preparation of oppositions to motions to vacate; (4) preparation for and attendance at hearings on motions to vacate; (5) preparation of memorandum of costs after judgment; (6) review of motion to tax costs; (7) preparation of opposition to motion to tax costs; and (8) attendance at hearing on motion to tax costs. (Motion, RJN and Exhibits, Exh. J.)

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC VS DWIGHT JOHNSON, ET AL

On March 9, 2018, the Court issued a writ of execution. On December 10, 2018, the Court issued a writ of execution. On January 5, 2019, Plaintiff sent bank levy instructions to the Los Angeles County Sherriff. Plaintiff received a memorandum of garnishee that a bank account linked to Defendant's social security number had been located and $7,262.16 was levied from Defendant's bank account. On January 15, 2019, Defendant filed a claim of an exemption.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Additionally, Notice of Levy Under Writ of Execution was recorded on the same date. (Id. at Exh. B.) The Application was timely filed five days later on May 29, 2019. Therefore, the Application is timely under Code of Civil Procedure section 704.770, subdivision (a).

  • Hearing

ASCENTIUM CAPITAL LLC VS NORTH CREEK MEDICINE INC PS

This order sets aside the default, default judgment and writ of execution. This order thus moots Defendant's MOTION TO QUASH/ RECALL OR STAY WRIT OF EXECUTION.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

THE VILLAS AT CORTE BELLA ASSOCIATION V WESTPART CORTE BELLA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

The motion of defendant Westpark Corte Bella Community Association (“Westpark”) to recall the Writ of Execution for money and quash the Notice of Levy is GRANTED. Westpark’s request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to Exhibit 1 and DENIED as to Exhibit 2. “[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.” (Jones v. World Life Research Inst. (1976) 60 Cal. App. 3d 836, 840.)

  • Hearing

LIDIA COVARRUBIAS VS KARLA LILIBETH GIOIA, ET AL.

POST-JUDGMENT PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 13, 2019, Defendants filed an Application for Issuance Writ of Execution, Possession or Sale against Plaintiffs and their counsel, Simon Chang. On May 16, 2019, a Writ of Execution for Personal Property was issued against Judgment Debtors, Plaintiffs Kenneth Yoon, Oyang America, Inc., and attorney Simon Chang, in a total amount of $12,642.00.

  • Hearing

KENNETH YOON, ET AL. VS SAJO OYANG CORPORATION, ET AL.

POST-JUDGMENT PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 13, 2019, Defendants filed an Application for Issuance Writ of Execution, Possession or Sale against Plaintiffs and their counsel, Simon Chang. On May 16, 2019, a Writ of Execution for Personal Property was issued against Judgment Debtors, Plaintiffs Kenneth Yoon, Oyang America, Inc., and attorney Simon Chang, in a total amount of $12,642.00.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KANA CLARK VS JOHN MACARAY

A writ of execution issued on May 1, 2020. On May 27, 2020, the court denied plaintiff’s ex parte application to vacate the judgment for costs but reserved the herein date to allow for plaintiff to file a noticed motion.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

L.A. COMMERCIAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION VS LOOT CRATE , INC ., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

On December 11, 2019, the clerk issued a writ of execution. On April 21, 2020, Davis filed a motion to set aside the default judgment based pursuant to 473(b) based on the mistake and medical emergencies of his counsel. On June 30, 2020, Davis filed an answer to the complaint. On July 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition. Davis did not file a reply.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

888 TOWER, LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS SMITH PATTEN, A BUSINESS ENTITY, FORM UNKNOWN

On September 18, 2019, the Court issued a Writ of Execution in the amount of $36,148.34. On January 3, 2020, Patten filed in the instant Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default Judgment. On April 23, 2020, 888 Tower filed an Opposition. On July 9, 2020, Patten filed a Reply. DISCUSSION Patten moves for an order setting aside the default and vacating the default judgment. (Motion at p. 3.)

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Nor is a Notice of Levy on Judicial Council Form EJ-150 attached to, or filed concurrently with, the Writ of Execution filed on May 14, 2019. Without proof of the date of purported notice of levy, the Court cannot determine that this Application was timely filed under Code of Civil Procedure section 704.770, subdivision (a).

  • Hearing

PERSOLVE VS. CANIZALEZ

HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT FILED BY RHINA CANIZALEZ * TENTATIVE RULING: * On January 3, 2020 the defendant filed a motion to vacate a civil judgment entered against her on November 14, 2013 after a court trial. Following the trial, the court ordered her to pay $75 per month to satisfy the judgment. A writ of execution was filed with the court by the Plaintiff on December 2, 2019.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

VAZGEN MIRZAKHANYAN VS JV & T CAPITAL LLC ET AL

On September 4, 2019, a writ of execution was issued where Volodya Adanyan is the assignee of record and the judgment debtor is Monika M. Setyan. On November 1, 2019, the Court granted Defendant Monika M. Setyan’s motion to set aside/vacate judgment. On March 20, 2020, Defendant Monika M. Setyan filed the instant motion to compel attendance at deposition and production of documents. On April 8, 2020, Julie C. Lim, counsel for Volodya Adanyan, filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.