What is a Quash Writ of Execution?

Useful Rulings on Quash Writ of Execution

Recent Rulings on Quash Writ of Execution

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

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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 April 8, 2020, Julie C. Lim, counsel for Volodya Adanyan, filed the instant motion to be relieved as counsel.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Further, the stipulation states that “In the event defendants default upon one or more of the payments required of defendants as set forth above, then plaintiff may immediately have Judgment entered against defendants for all amounts prayed as set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint in the above-entitled action, including interest, attorney fees and costs, less any amounts already paid by defendant and obtain the issuance of any Abstract of Judgment, Writ of Execution, and any other further documentation which plaintiff

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

LOBEL FINANCIAL VS. JOHNSON

The court file reflects that a Final Return on a Writ of Execution on the judgment was filed by the Sheriff of Alameda County on or about March 16, 2018 showing that at one point before that date $1353.40 had been garnished from the Defendant’s salary at the Oakland Unified School District. In her motion, Defendant claims that she did not have actual notice of the lawsuit filed against her in 2006. She claims that she moved from the 5535 Scoville address to get away from drug dealers in that neighborhood.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

AL GARZONNE VS SOUTH BAY PRE-OWNED, INC.

Eiser declares that he learned of the default judgment only when South Bay notified him that it had received a writ of execution in March 2020, and South Bay shortly thereafter fired him. (Eiser Decl. ¶¶ 5–6.) Garzonne argues that the default judgment was not in fact caused by Eiser because default judgment materials were in fact served on South Bay on May 21, 2019, meaning that South Bay could have notified its attorney of the impending default. (Sorial Decl. ¶ 4.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT; QUASH SERVICE (CCP § 473, 473.5, equity; 418.10) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant/Judgment Debtor Forrest Balmain’s Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment is DENIED. In addition, Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service is also DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MCPHERSON RANE LLP VS MARK TOWLE

Motion to Quash Writ When a judgment is vacated, it “cannot be effective for any purpose,” and thus it is proper to recall and quash a writ of execution based on such ineffective judgment. ((Stegge v. Wilkerson (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 1, 5.) Here, because the default judgment entered against Towle was vacated, the writ of execution is properly quashed. However, Towle also seeks the return of his levied funds.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

SAUL ARMAS VS. 9510 VAN NUYS BLVD. LLC., ET AL

Rather, the parties agreed that Plaintiff would not attempt to collect on the writ of execution until after December 9, 2020 to allow Defendants time to post the $112,500 bond equal to 1.5 times the judgment. Defendants agreed to post this bond, but only delivered a $112,500 cashier’s check to the Department U clerk with instructions to “hold onto this.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

DFK WHOLESALE, INC. V. HIGH HILL RANCH, LLC

The motion to vacate the default and default judgment, to quash the writ of execution and order return of all amounts obtained in the bank levy is granted. Defendant is to file an original executed answer as proposed by defendant in Exhibit A to defense counsel’s declaration filed in support of the motion and serve a copy of the executed answer on the plaintiff within ten days.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2020

RESIDENT OWNED PARKS, INC. V. ROGER DICK, ET AL.

The Court will stay the writ of execution for a 60-day period. If Darcel and Robert can locate a bona fide purchaser for the Property during this period, they should proceed with the sale upon Plaintiff’s approval of a rental application. However, under the Stipulated Judgment, Darcel and Robert were legally obligated to vacate the Property by December 31, 2019, whether or not they secured a purchaser.

  • Hearing

    Jun 03, 2020

THE VILLAS AT CORTE BELLA ASSOCIATION V. WESTPARK CORTE BELLA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

However, “[a] writ of execution may be recalled and quashed where the issuance was improperly or inadvertently made.” Meyer v. Meyer (1952) 115 Cal. App. 2d 48, 49. Although, Westpark labeled its motion as an ex parte application for temporary injunction, which prompted the court to issue an OSC re Preliminary Injunction, Westpark’s underlying motion is to recall the Writ and quash the Levy.

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2020

STEVENSON V. SHECKLER

There were additional nontort remedies for the allegedly wrongful conduct: moving to recall and quash the writ of execution (see Brown, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at p. 50, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 891; Stegge v. Wilkerson (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 1, 5, 10 Cal.Rptr. 867; Colby v. Colby (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 602, 605, 274 P.2d 417; Meyer v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

QUICK CASH FUNDING LLC VS MARK KING

On December 13, 2012, a Writ of Execution (Money Judgment) was filed by Plaintiff against Defendant for the sum of $69,598.33. B. Relevant Background and Motions on Calendar On July 19, 2019, Defendant failed to appear for his debtor examination and thus the Court held a bench warrant until September 5, 2019. On September 5, 2019, Defendant failed to appear again, and the Court ordered and issued a bench warrant. On October 16, 2019, Defendant appeared, but Plaintiff requested the hearing be continued.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Finally, Basta expresses frustration with the court’s alleged failure to sign proposed orders and statements on appeal, a commissioner allegedly confusing “two similar, but entirely distinct, motions,” the court’s alleged failure to reject Basta’s own incorrect abstract of judgment, and the court’s alleged rejection of one of Basta’s motion filings and application for a writ of execution. (Mo. at 5-6.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

KELLOGG SQUARE LLC VS WARREN BUTLER

On July 10, 2019, the court issued a writ of execution in the amount of $69,025. On January 16, 2020, the Sheriff returned that writ unsatisfied. On January 15, 2020, the court issued another writ of execution in the amount of $69,040. Motion to Vacate Judgment: On February 4, 2020, defendant filed a motion to vacate judgment. Plaintiff opposes the motion. In a declaration within his motion, defendant states he moved out as agreed.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

CALIFORNIA LABOR COMMISSIONER, DLSE, DIR. VS MATTHIAS CLASSEN, AN INDIVIDUAL

On July 23, 2019, Assignee of Record obtained a Writ of Execution against Defendant in the amount of $13,525.78. (7/23/19 Writ.) On September 25, 2019, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal for a Limited Case. On November 20, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Set Aside Judgment. On January 29, 2018, the Court continued the hearing because Defendant failed to serve Plaintiff with the moving papers. (1/29/20 Minute Order.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On May 14, 2019, a Writ of Execution was issued. On September 13, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Vacate Default Judgment (the “Motion”). On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Opposition. No reply was filed. On January 14, 2020, the Court continued the hearing to allow Defendant to submit supplemental papers and evidence to support her argument that she had never been served with the Summons and Complaint. (1/14/20 Minute Order.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Defendant states that he first heard of this action was in January, 2019, when a sheriff’s deputy served a writ of execution for the sale of his property. (Id. at ¶9.) The instant motion was filed two months later. As to whether Defendant has a meritorious defense, the Court previously noted that the California Supreme Court has held that “[o]rdinarily a verified answer to a complaint’s allegations suffices to show [meritorious defense].” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 983.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2020

STRUCTURES INC VS. HYDROPRESSURE CLEANING INC

In light of the court's intended ruling on this motion, the motion to stay enforcement of the writ of execution is moot. Discussion: According to the proof of service, HPC was served via service on Charles Carner "Vice President" as a "person served on behalf of an entity or as an authorized agent" on 6/27/19. The process server checked the box indicating he had served HPC by personal service by delivering the documents to the "person authorized to receive service of process for the party."

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

DAISY SANDOVAL VS LAW OFFICES OF MOON KIM ET AL

A Writ of Execution was thereafter issued to levy Kim’s personal bank accounts. On August 4, 2019, this case was reassigned to Department 94. On July 30, 2019, Kim filed a Motion for Order to Recall the Writ of Execution, to Vacate Order on Affidavit of Identity, to Release Property, and to Award Fees and Costs. In part, Kim argued that The Law Offices of Moon Kim, a corporation, and Moon Kim, an individual, are legally different entities.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, AS ASSIGNEE OF SYNCHRONY BANK FKA GE CAPITAL RETAIL BANK VS ROBERT SMITH ET AL.

Tentative Ruling Defendants' motion to quash summons and complaint for lack of service, and to set aside default and default judgment, and to quash writ of execution, is Granted. CCP sections 418.10, 473.5; CC section 1788.61. No opposition filed. It appears that the process service did not serve these Defendants, based on the physical descriptions on the alleged Proofs of Service and based on the declarations of these Defendants. Any service is void as a matter of law.

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

LAKELAND WEST CAPITAL VIII, LLC VS WILLIAM F. LASKY

The Official Comment make clear that receivables are recoverable, although not mentioned in the statute: LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE COMMENT: “Section 708.510 provides a new procedure for reaching certain forms of property that cannot be reached by levy under a writ of execution, such as the nonexempt loan value of an unmatured life insurance, endowment, or annuity policy. See Sections 699.720(a)(6), 704.100.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

CALIFORNIA LABOR COMMISSIONER, DLSE, DIR. VS MATTHIAS CLASSEN, AN INDIVIDUAL

On July 23, 2019, Assignee of Record obtained a Writ of Execution against Defendant in the amount of $13,525.78. (7/23/19 Writ.) On September 25, 2019, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal for a Limited Case. On November 20, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Set Aside Judgment (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed. II.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Defendant also states he was not aware of the default and default judgment until August 2019, after a writ of execution was issued seeking to levy his bank account. (Id.., ¶ 15.) Defendant immediately sought counsel and brought this Motion that same month. Based on this, the Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated reasonable diligence in seeking relief. III. Conclusion & Order For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Glenn D.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROBERT C. BARAL VS. DAVID SCHNITT, ET AL

Defendant David Schnitt moves to quash the writ of execution issued on Plaintiff’s judgment and for $16,600 in sanctions. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant David Schnitt’s motion to quash the writ of execution is GRANTED. Defendant’s motion for sanctions is DENIED. Motion To Quash Writ of Execution Defendant moves to quash a writ of execution issued October 9, 2019, on the judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff on February 19, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 11     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.