Motion for Payment of Judgment by Installments in California

The court may amend the terms and conditions for payment of the judgment or order at any time to provide for installment payments for good cause upon motion by a party and notice to all affected parties, regardless of the nature of the underlying debt and regardless of whether the moving party appeared before entry of the judgment or order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 582.5.)

The court may amend the terms and conditions for payment of the judgment or order at any time to provide for installment payments for good cause upon motion by a party and notice to all affected parties, regardless of the nature of the underlying debt and regardless of whether the moving party appeared before entry of the judgment or order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 582.5.)

Sanchez's Motion for Payment of Judgment by Installments Grant Judgment Debtor Mw. Sanchez' motion to pay Plaintiff Midland Funding LLC's $9,628.32 judgment against her in monthly installments 1. Despite the fact that her expenses exceed her income, debtor seeks monthly installment payments of $300 per month. That is granted . She may pay $ 300.00/mo., commencing January __, 2012, until the balance is paid in full. (Code Civ. Proc. § 582.5.) 2.

The Court intends to DENY Defendant Emily Hofbauer's motion for installment payments as her financial statement shows her household net monthly income to be $7,088.00 while her household monthly expenses are $2,825.00. (C.C.P. § 582.5, 703.115.)

The Court intends to grant the motion to make installment payments and order monthly payments of $35 commencing on April 20, 2018, and continuing on the 20th day of each month thereafter until the judgment is paid in full. (CCP § 582.5.)

CCP § 582.5: In a limited civil case in which the defendant has appeared, if the judgment or order is for the payment of money by the defendant, the defendant shall pay the judgment immediately or at any time and upon terms and conditions, including installment payments, that the court may prescribe.

s motion for payment of judgment by installment. (C.C.P. § 582.5.) Defendant shall pay the judgment at the rate of $20.00 per month commencing November 1, 2009 and continuing on the 1st day of each month thereafter until the judgment is paid in full. In the event Defendant is delinquent on a payment for more than 15 days, the entire judgment amount then unpaid will become immediately due and payable upon a declaration filed by Plaintiff, without further notice to Defendant.

The court's tentative ruling is to: Grant Defendant/Debtor's motion for installment payments [CCP § 582.5] in the amount of $50.00 per month.

Grant Defendant/Debtor's motion for installment payments in the amount of $100.00 per month, commencing on March 1, 2012, and on the 1st of the month every month thereafter, for a period of two years. (CCP § 582.5). 1. With this payment schedule, the judgment debtor understands that the debt will keep increasing -- instead of reducing -- despite his $100/mo. payments. At the 10% legal rate of interest, the judgment will be accruing interest at the rate of $143.77 per month. 2.

Effective February 13, 2018, this case is assigned for all purposes to Judge Guasco _____________________________________________ The Court's tentative decision on the motion of defendant, Francisco Espinoza ("Espinoza"), to pay the judgment against him and in favor of plaintiff, Mercury Insurance Company ("Mercury"), in installments pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 582.5 is as follows: GRANTED. The motion is unopposed.

The court may amend the terms and conditions for payment of the judgment or order at any time to provide for installment payments for good cause upon motion by a party and notice to all affected parties, regardless of the nature of the underlying debt and regardless of whether the moving party appeared before entry of the judgment or order.

The court's tentative ruling is to: Grant the uopposed Motion to vacate order to pay judgment by installments. Discussion Code Civ. Proc., § 582.5 states: "In a limited civil case in which the defendant has appeared, if the judgment or order is for the payment of money by the defendant, the defendant shall pay the judgment immediately or at any time and upon terms and conditions, including installment payments, that the court may prescribe.

The court's tentative ruling is to: Grant the motion without prejudice to the Plaintiff to bring a motion for review of the Defendant's finanacial status one year from the entry of the order.

Discussion CCP §582.5 provides: In a limited civil case in which the defendant has appeared, if the judgment or order is for the payment of money by the defendant, the defendant shall pay the judgment immediately or at any time and upon terms and conditions, including installment payments, that the court may prescribe.

MOTION FOR ORDER TO PAY JUDGMENT IN INSTALLMENTS (Civil Code § 582.5) TENTATIVE RULING: JUDGMENT DEBTOR MORSHEDA J. HOSIAN DBA RISING STAR CHILD CARE’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO PAY JUDGMENT IN INSTALLMENTS IS PLACED OFF CALENDAR. ANALYSIS: On July 2, 2019, the Court entered judgment in favor of Jasmine Pebley (“Judgment Creditor”) and against Morsheda J.

On June 29, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion to Pay Judgment in Installments (the “Motion”), requesting that the Court prescribe an installment payment plan of $100 per month payable on the 22nd of each month. (Motion, Yende Decl. ¶ 3.) On July 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

Discussion Code of Civil Procedure §582.5 provides: "In a limited civil case in which the defendant has appeared, if the judgment or order is for the payment of money by the defendant, the defendant shall pay the judgment immediately or at any time and upon terms and conditions, including installment payments, that the court may prescribe.

On June 29, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion to Pay Judgment in Installments (the “Motion”), requesting that the Court prescribe an installment payment plan of $100 per month payable on the 22nd of each month. (Motion, Yende Decl. ¶ 3.) On July 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

Proc. § 582.5. An uninsured motorist’s license is suspended after an accident until and unless she gives proof of financial responsibility for future damages and the trial court orders the payment of the judgment in installments and payment of any installment payment is not in default. Veh. Code § 16379.

The court's tentative ruling is to: Grant the motion to pay the judgment in installments of $25 per month. Discussion The court may amend the terms and conditions for payment of a judgment at any time to provide for installment payments for good cause upon motion by a party and notice to all affected parties, regardless of the nature of the underlying debt and regardless of whether the moving party appeared before entry of the judgment or order.

Discussion The court may amend the terms and conditions for payment of a judgment at any time to provide for installment payments for good cause upon motion by a party and notice to all affected parties, regardless of the nature of the underlying debt and regardless of whether the moving party appeared before entry of the judgment or order.

Subdivision (c) of CCP section 697.310 reads: “The creation and duration of a judgment lien under a money judgment entered pursuant to Section 117 or 582.5 of this code or Section 16380 of the Vehicle Code or under a similar judgment is governed by this section, notwithstanding that the judgment may be payable in installments.” The reference to “installment payments” pretty much does away with the notion that payment status determines whether something appears in the judgment.

. _____________________________________________ The court's tentative ruling is as follows: Grant in part and deny in part Defendant/Judgment Debtor Mohammad Ishtiaq's motion for an order allowing her to pay the Judgment against her by installments. Defendant may make installment payments on the Judgment in the amount of $100.00 per month for the period from March 1, 2016, through February 1, 2018, with the installment payments due on the first each month during that period.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED and the judgment stands.

In his Motion, Defendant presents evidence that the agreement does not state the words “Retail Installment Contract” in 12-point font. (Motion, Separate Statement Fact No. 8; Kingston Decl., Exhs. A and B; Compl., Exh. C.) He also argues that the entity that created the agreement, Video Symphony EnterTraining, Inc. (“VSE”), was owned by Michael Flanagan, who is the sole shareholder of the entity that now owns the debt (Plaintiff).

Specifically, the Stipulation imposes a penalty assessment of $28,623.23 on Defendant for failing to make the agreed upon installment payments, with no showing that $28,623.23 bears a reasonable relationship to any actual damages that might have flowed from Defendant's failure to make the first installment payment. (Id.) If Plaintiff refiles this motion, the Court is unlikely to enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor in an amount greater than $40,500.

If Plaintiff elects to refile this motion, the Court may be inclined to enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor in the amount of $3,160 (i.e., the amount of installment payments Defendant still owes under the parties' Stipulation plus the $60 filing fee for a motion to vacate dismissal and enter judgment.)

The motion is granted subject to Defendant becoming current on the installment agreement by paying, if she has not done so yet, an additional $100 on 11/20/16. This ruling is without prejudice for Plaintiff to apply for entry of judgment in the event another installment payment becomes past due.

KITCHEN DESIGN EXPO Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment The motion is denied. The trial court shall grant a motion for summary judgment if “all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(c).)

However, beginning in April 2020, Plaintiff may seek to enforce the entire Judgment against Defendant unless Defendant successfully brings another motion permitting him to continue making installment payments. The reason for this condition is that the monthly installment payment ordered will not even cover the statutory interest on Plaintiff's Judgment (which accumulates at the annual rate of 10%, or approximately $129.26 per month), and therefore would never result in payment of the Judgment.

The second installment shall be made within thirty (30) days of the first installment. The Third installment shall be made within thirty (30) days of the second installment, and the fourth and final installment shall be made within (30) days of the third installment.” (Confidential Settlement and General Release Agreement, ¶¶ 1A – B.) Based on the terms of the agreement, Pedram is to pay Plaintiffs $1,000 by March 13, 2019 and $1,000 within 30 days thereafter.

Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication is denied.

For access to the link, please go to https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJPyOO2-66riZKCG2IgO4Fg/ Except for law and motion matters that are brought before the Law and Motion Departments pursuant to Local Rule 2.30, the parties shall provide courtesy copies of any filings to Department 40. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and until full in-person operations are restored, parties shall provide courtesy copies by email to Dept40@saccourt.ca.gov, and not in-person.

Cross-Defendants have not opposed the motion. Accordingly, the undisputed facts support judgment in favor of Cross-Complainant on its breach of contract cause of action: Mega and Cross-Defendants entered into the Dealer Agreement which governs the terms under which Mega would purchase retail installment sale contracts from Cross-Defendants.

The parties agreed judgment would not be entered if Defendant made installment payments totaling $16,000. The final installment payment was due on December 15, 2016. If those installment payments were faithfully made “the Stipulation shall be deemed satisfied in full.” The case was dismissed and the Court retained jurisdiction over performance of the settlement. DEFAULT Defendant made some payments late, which Plaintiff accepted.

Judgment Debtor Joseph Arbour Motion - Other (Motion to Compel the Delivery of Partial and Full Satisfaction of Judgment) Judgment Debtor Joseph Arbour’s motion to compel the delivery of partial and full satisfactions of judgment pursuant to CCP § 724.220 et seq., is denied without prejudice. The motion is based on Code Civ. Proc., §§ 724.220, 724.230, and 724.260. (See Notice of Motion, ROA 189.)

Tentative Ruling on Motion to Change Venue: This breach of contract action arises out of defendant’s alleged failure to make payments on an installment note secured by a deed of trust and assignment of rents.

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion and Plaintiff shall recover her attorney’s fees in the amount of $16,471.50.

Moving party to contact department SEB to set a new hearing date for the motion to vacate, with no additional filing fee required. Court clerk to give notice.

Lemus agreed to pay $95,000 to settle the case, with the first installment of $30,000 to be paid by August 15, 2019, the second installment of $30,000 to be paid by September 15, 2019, the third installment of $20,000 to be paid by October 15, 2019, and the final installment of $15,000 to be paid by November 15, 2019. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. 1, § 3.2.) The settlement agreement is signed by both Lopez and Lemus, and it includes an enforcement provision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES Plaintiff Steven J. Mee, Jr.’s unopposed Motion to Determine the Prevailing Party on Installment Sales Contract, etc., is Granted. Plaintiff is the prevailing party on the instant action, involving an Installment Sales Contract, and under Civil Code § 2983.4, is therefore entitled to an award of attorney's fees as an item of costs.

BHE’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. BHE’s motion for summary adjudication is DENIED as to the third cause of action and the first, second, third, fourth, and sixth declarations sought in the fourth causes of action. BHE’s motion is MOOT as to the first cause of action, which was removed from the operative pleading via demurrer and not amended. Cross-defendant’s motion is MOOT as to the second cause of action.

The first installment of $11,250 was due July 14, 2016 by 5 pm. The second installment of $11,250 was due on August 15, 2016 by 5 pm. The payments were to be delivered to Plaintiff’s attorney’s office or could be paid electronically to Plaintiff’s attorney’s client trust account. The parties agreed that if Defendant “default[ed] on either payment, [Plaintiff would] be entitled to make a motion to the Court for a stipulated judgement in the amount of $70,000.”

CAUSEWAY ET AL Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Summary Adjudication of Defendants’ 22nd Affirmative Defense is DENIED. Previously, the Court denied Defendants’ MSA of the 22nd Affirmative Defense of Accord and Satisfaction. Defendants filed a petition for writ of made with the Court of Appeals as to that denial, which was also denied. Defendants now renew its MSA in light of new facts under CCP §1008(b). ANALYSIS: I.

1 year later, and then 3rd/last installment 2 years after that 1st distribution).

Motion: by petitioner to compel arbitration Tentative Ruling: To grant and order that respondent submit to arbitration before AAA in Fresno, California. Explanation: “Ultimately dispositive here are two other long-established interpretive principles. First, under state law as under federal law, when the allocation of a matter to arbitration or the courts is uncertain, we resolve all doubts in favor of arbitration.” Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal. 4th 233, 247.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, BCH was required to make six installment payments (“Installment Payments”) over a course of a year totaling $500,000 (“Settlement Amount”).

Plaintiff now moves for an order enforcing the settlement’s acceleration clause on the grounds that Defendants have failed to make any payments other than the first installment paid in October 2020, missing at least 5 monthly installments. Mr. Carchedi opposes Plaintiff’s motion. He does not dispute that Defendants have not made several required installment payments or that this triggered the acceleration clause.

Motion by Plaintiff/Cross-defendant Cyrus Fakouri for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication The court has treated plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment/adjudication as one for summary adjudication as to plaintiff’s first cause of action for breach of contract against defendant Fakouri Eletrical Engineering, Inc. only. (Motion P&As at 1:23-25.)

TENTATIVE RULING: The UNOPPOSED Motion of Plaintiff to Enforce Settlement Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 is GRANTED. Judgment in the amount of $10,792.20, plus attorney's fees, issues against Defendant Autobaun. Failure to file an opposition to the motion indicates defendant's acquiescence that the motion is meritorious. Plaintiff's counsel's estimate for attorney's fees is based on the assumption a reply would be prepared.

Motion to Dismiss Defendant Douglas E. Kottler moves for dismissal pursuant to Civil Code section 1812.10 and CCP section 396a(a). Civil Code section 1812.10 governs the venue for where an action on a retail installment sales contract or installment account shall be tried. (See Civ. Code, § 1812.10(a).) A plaintiff in such an action is required to file an affidavit stating facts showing the action has been commenced in the proper court. (See id., § 1812.10(c); see also Code Civ. Proc., § 396a(a).)

As prevailing party, Plaintiff requests that judgment include $4,335 in attorneys’ fees and the $60 filing cost incurred in enforcing the motion. Plaintiff’s counsel declares that his billing rate is $570 an hour, he spent 5 hours on the motion, and anticipates 2.5 hours for preparing/attending the hearing. (See Haley Decl., ¶ 15.) This amount is reasonable. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to enforce the settlement and enter judgment in the amount of $148,354.34 is GRANTED.

Pay Ortiz the $1,462.86 still owed in settlement of her individual wage-and-hour claims, i.e., the second installment payment described in § 4 of the Agreement. c. Pay Ortiz’s counsel, Jackson Law APC, $13,537.13 owed for fees and costs. 2. The motion is DENIED as to the Individual Defendants. 3. Both Ortiz’s and Defendants’ requests for attorney’s fees are DENIED. GROUNDS FOR RULING I. Judicial Notice Ortiz requests judicial notice of papers submitted in support of her PAGA approval motion. (ROA 131.)

Accordingly, the Court ordered Defendant to file a supplemental declaration properly authenticating the Retail Installment Sales Contract and clarifying whether there is a cap on the costs to be paid by RHC for arbitration, and if so, the amount of that cap, as well as the amount at issue in this action. Defendant was ordered to file this supplemental declaration on or before April 30, 2021 . As of the date of continued hearing on this motion, Defendant has failed to file such a supplemental declaration.

Plaintiff contends Warman breached its obligation to repay Plaintiff for two loans in the amounts of $150,000.00 and $70,000.00, as memorialized in an Installment Promissory Note dated December 12, 2016 and an Installment Promissory Note dated December 22, 2016. Plaintiff further contends Warman defaulted on both loans.

The court's order is pursuant to the language of the installment order: "Failure to pay any installment payment when due will result in a forfeiture of the payment schedule making the entire balance owed on the judgment due and payable: upon noticed motion filed by the judgment creditor".

FCS059276 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Request Production of Documents TENTATIVE RULING The petition to compel arbitration is denied. Defendant seeks to compel arbitration based solely on the arbitration clause included in the retail installment sales contract between Plaintiff and the nonparty dealer. (See, Decl. of Elias, ¶¶ 2, 4.) The manufacturer cannot compel arbitration based on the retail installment sales contract between Plaintiff and the dealer. (Yeh v.

FCS059276 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Request Production of Documents TENTATIVE RULING The petition to compel arbitration is denied. Defendant seeks to compel arbitration based solely on the arbitration clause included in the retail installment sales contract between Plaintiff and the nonparty dealer. (See, Decl. of Elias, ¶¶ 2, 4.) The manufacturer cannot compel arbitration based on the retail installment sales contract between Plaintiff and the dealer. (Yeh v.

Younessi contacted Defense counsel via email correspondence and advised that Plaintiffs did not agree to a payment plan (and would not agree) . . . .], 22 [Plaintiffs have rejected Versas repeated attempts to formalize an installment payment agreement.], 23 [Despite Plaintiffs rejection of Versas proposed installment payment agreement . . . .].) Plaintiffs also seek $1,260.00 in attorney fees and costs incurred for the motion.

On March 15, 2017, the parties finalized and entered into a settlement agreement in which defendant was to pay plaintiff in three installment payments over three months. In March 2017, defendant issued its first installment payment in the amount of $13,125.00, but did not issue the remaining installments in April or May. On May 30, 2017, plaintiff filed this unopposed motion to enforce the settlement agreement and to award $2,553.00 in attorneys’ fees incurred on this motion.

The Installment Rule. Plaintiff filed its original Complaint on July 22, 2016. Under the installment rule, plaintiff is entitled to recover, at a minimum, the amount of each installment payment that became delinquent within the four years previous to the filing date. (See, Bank of America Nat'l Trust & Sav. Asso. v. McLaughlin (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d Supp. 911, 915-916.) Defendants attempt to characterize the McLaughlin decision as an exotic outlier written by a Superior Court appellate department.

This Motion: Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is DENIED. TENTATIVE ORDER Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is DENIED. Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. to give notice. DISCUSSION Request for Judicial Notice Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.

There is no cognizable prejudice to Plaintiff from granting the relief, as the $80,000 penalty has no relation to any damages suffered from the slightly late final installment of $12,500. The same relief was granted to Defendant Andy Funk. (Komsky Decl., Ex. H.) Without an opposition, Plaintiff concedes the merits of the motion. CONCLUSION Defendant Kristi Funks motion to set aside judgment is GRANTED.

On 9/15/11, defendant failed to pay the monthly installment. Plaintiff served a notice of default upon defendant. Defendant failed to make any payment to cure the default, or even to respond to the notice of default. On 10/15/11, defendant tendered a check for the October installment, without acknowledging the failure to pay the September installment. The check was retuned as untimely. Under the terms of the agreement, plaintiff is entitled to seek a judgment for all amounts due, which totals $43,750.

Accordingly, Defendants Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and Sullivan Motor Cars, LLC dba Toyota Santa Monicas Motion to Compel Binding Arbitration is DENIED.

Based on the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Defendants default by failure to make further payments pursuant to the installment payment schedule, the Court finds there is substantive merit to granting the motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Thus, the motion to enforce the Stipulation is granted. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Plaintiff Be Well Nursings motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement against Defendant Pacifica Hospital of the Valley pursuant to CCP § 664.6 is granted.

He contends that if Sharon “truly intends to satisfy her ongoing installment obligations under the Judgment and Promissory Note, she would have no objection to” his request that spousal support be applied toward those installment payments until it is satisfied in full. The Court has some notes about the sad state of affairs. Unfortunately the Court has no report from DCSS as to what it has received or collected from any wage assignment. Neither party to this motion sheds any light on that issue either.

Since a PAGA settlement involves one motion rather than two motions like class actions, a fixed amount for Administrator fees, rather than a not-to-exceed figure, must be provided for the court to approve, supported by an invoice from the Administrator. A one year old estimate is insufficient. The cover letter to be sent to the aggrieved employees with their penalty checks fails to adequately explain the installment payment plan for the distribution of the funds, with anticipated dates of payments.

The first installment of $11,485.00 was due on or before April 30, 2018, the second installment of $11,485.00 was due on or before May 31, 2018 and the third installment of $11,845.00 was due on or before June 30, 2018. (Stipulation, ¶¶ 1-3.)

Hoffman, Case No. 20SMCV00366 Hearing Date December 10, 2021 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Supplemental Briefing) Plaintiff alleges nonpayment of a $150,000 loan. On October 15, 2021, the court tentatively denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. The court granted both sides the opportunity to provide supplemental briefing. The statute of limitations for an installment contract begins running from the date each individual payment was due.

Section 1812.10 is in chapter 1 of title 2 of part 4 of division 3 of the Civil Code dealing with retail installment sales. The contract alleges a breach of a retail installment sales contract and therefore section 1812.10 applies.

However, uncashed checks from the first installment payment should not be delivered to the Unclaimed Property Fund after 180 days. Instead, the amounts of those checks should be added to the second installment payments sent to those employees, and if those checks are uncashed after 180 days, then the amounts of those uncashed checks should then be delivered to the Unclaimed Property Fund.

In the event of a power outage, all Probate and Law and Motion matters scheduled in Dept. 6 will be continued to Friday, November 1, 2019. Defendant's Motion for Installment Payments is granted. Pursuant to CCP ''116.620 and 706.051, the court finds that the judgment debtor's earnings are necessary for the support of the judgment debtor and are exempt from levy, except for the sum of $15 per month.

Tamayo's purchase of a 2007 GMC Sierra 1500 from Bunnin Buick on 1/14/07, under a written retail installment sale contract that was subsequently transferred to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has established its claim for a deficiency judgment on the installment sales contract for the purchase of the vehicle. The plaintiff has submitted proof in support of its claim of breach of contract by Mr. Tamayo and its compliance with the requirements of the Automobile Sales Finance Act.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement The hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to May 31, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX104 to permit the parties to respond to the following items of concern. Any supplemental briefing shall be filed on or before May 22, 2019.

Moving party to contact department SEB to set a new hearing date for the motion to vacate, with no additional filing fee required. Court clerk to give notice.

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.

First, the settlement and the Villegas Declaration both indicate that payment to the PAGA Claimants will not occur until the final installment payment in August 2017. (Motion 7:18- 20; Villegas Declaration ¶ 20.) The papers also indicate that the financial condition of Defendants is what necessitated the settlement being paid in installments.

A $30,000 payment on the original first installment date; 2. Any portion of the initial $150,000 not paid by the first installment date would be paid on or before the second installment date; 3. Any portion of the initial $150,000 not paid by the first installment date is subject to interest at a rate equal to that accrued by the settlement funds paid in the initial settlement payment, should there be any interest thus accrued.

See Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Installment Payments. Pursuant to the terms outlined above, Plaintiff is awarded $6,124.15 CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement is GRANTED. Moving party to give notice.

.: 8 Discover Motion C/O: None POS: OK Trial Date: None SUBJECT: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Rama Fund, LLC RESP. PARTY: Defendant Adrian Comstock TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. I. Unlawful detainer pursuant to CCP §1161a(b)(3) A.

Here, in its Motion, Defendant Kia points to the relevant arbitration language in the Parties Retail Installment Sale Contract Simple Finance Charge with Arbitration Provision contract. (Motion, 4:6-26.) Defendant Kia further a copy of this contract as Exhibit A attached to Mr. Mohammed Kharboushs Declaration.

[X] NO PENDING MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT [X] SUMMARY OF CASE PROVIDED (CRC 3.1800(a)(1)) - or other declaration OK [X] [X] EVIDENTIARY DECLARATIONS/OTHER EVIDENCE (CRC 3.1800(a)(2)) · Plaintiff has provided a copy of the installment contract, defendant’s account history, and the deficiency memo. (Decl. Samayoa, Exs. (A)-(C).) [X] RELIEF PRAYED FOR IN COMPLAINT (same as requested in default?)

Nonpayment of an installment payment when due is breach of contract and is material due to defendants only paying 50% of purchase price and taking back a secured promissory note on the remaining 50% of the purchase price. 4. Nonpayment of one installment is a material breach of promissory note. See Exh. B Yatman Decl. $6,766.00 installment payment not paid in February 2017 when due.

The date of the first installment payment in Section IV of the notice to class should be changed to August 20, 2019 because of the need to continue this hearing. The dates of the second and third installment payments should be changed from the 30th to the 20th of December 2019 and August 2020 to be more consistent with the settlement agreement (p. 16). Plaintiff should clarify whether the PAGA subclass will be paid in three installments, or only with the third installment when the LWDA is paid.

The agreement provides that the settlement sum would be paid to Aspire in monthly installment payments. There is evidence of a default by Leon, who has not filed an opposition to the motion. Aspire now seeks entry of judgment in in the amount of $3,092.87. As the Court finds that Leon is in default of the stipulation, the Court will grant Aspire’s motion, in part.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the motion is GRANTED. The court to sign and enter the proposed judgment lodged by Plaintiff. Moving party to give notice.

The proof of service for the Motion indicates the Motion was served on “Mitchell R. Fiedler, et al c/o Charles Brash, Esq.” Based on the evidence submitted by Plaintiff, the Court is unable to determine which defendant(s) was/were responsible for the installment payments, who Plaintiff is required to notify when there is a default, and against whom judgment should be entered pursuant to the Stipulation for Conditional Entry of Judgment. Clerk to give notice.

This Tentative Ruling is made by Judge James Reilly Plaintiff's unopposed Motion to Enter Judgment is GRANTED, in part. The parties' Stipulation for Entry of Judgment provided that Defendant would make total payments of $8,880 in installments. However, upon default in the installment payments, Plaintiff could seek judgment in the amount of $11,061.63 "including court costs", less credit for all payments made.

Conclusion American Honda Motor Co., Inc.s Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENEID.

MOTION TO MAKE INSTALLMENT CITIBANK N.A. VS CVSW2103048 PAYMENTS ON JUDGMENT BY CASTILLO MEYBEL CASTILLO Tentative Ruling: Appearances required. Possible bankruptcy stay.

MOTION TO MAKE INSTALLMENT CITIBANK N.A. VS CVSW2103048 PAYMENTS ON JUDGMENT BY CASTILLO MEYBEL CASTILLO Tentative Ruling: Appearances required. Possible bankruptcy stay.

MOTION TO MAKE INSTALLMENT CITIBANK N.A. VS CVSW2103048 PAYMENTS ON JUDGMENT BY CASTILLO MEYBEL CASTILLO Tentative Ruling: Appearances required. Possible bankruptcy stay.

Ramos, Fernando Sanchez Ramos and Property Building Maintenance Services, LLC, obligating Defendants to pay $13,000.00 to Plaintiff – $6,500.00 initially and $6,500.00 pursuant to the installment payment schedule set forth in the Agreement. Plaintiff also submits evidence that Plaintiff received the initial $6,500.00 as well as partial payment of two of the eight installment payments due pursuant to the Agreement and that there is now outstanding $5,500.00.

Grant motion for installment payments @ $50 mo. commncing 1/1/09 and on or before the first of each month thereafter. gmr

counsel ($20,000); and (3) the final installment, which shall be made after one more year after the second installment, shall go to class counsel ($100,000).

The agreement does not provide (in connection with Stipulation § 59 [Individual Settlement Payments]) for the re-mailing of checks and/or the re-location of Settlement Class Member’s addresses that may occur during the pendency of Defendant’s 19-month installment payments towards the Gross Settlement Fund. 3. The settlement agreement does not appear to address when, in relation to the receipt of installment payments, payments will be made by the settlement administrator to class members, counsel, etc.

Servs., LLC (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 1214 in denying the motion, and expressly rejects Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486. Here, the only parties to the Retail Installment Sales Contract which contains the Arbitration provision are Plaintiffs and the non-party dealer; Riverside Honda. Defendant is not and does not claim to be an employee, agent, successor or assign of the non-party dealer.