Portfolio Recovery Associates, Llc V. Anthony Cox

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Tuesday, july 16, 2024, Line 3. PLAINTIFF UNIFUND CCR, LLC's Motion For Entering Judgment Pursuant To Defendant'S Default Under Settlement And Release Agreement. Granted as unopposed. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/CK)

21CV-04009 Northern California Collection Service, Inc. v. Juan Lopez Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal-Notice of Settlement Appearance required. Remote appearances are permitted. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of the court at (209) 725-4111 to arrange for a remote appearance. Appear to address the status of the settlement. The parties were in the process of getting an agreement signed on June 3, 2024.

S-CV-0051866 Grassy Sprain Group, Inc. vs. Brock, Brian ** NOTE: telephonic appearances are strongly encouraged Appearance required. Complaint is not at issue - Need responsive pleading, default or dismissal as to Defendant(s): Brock, Brian; Brock, William Additionally, no proof of service has been filed as to Defendant(s): Brock, Brian; Brock, William

C23-02463 CASE NAME: AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS. KIM COBBS COURT TRIAL HEARING FILED BY: *TENTATIVE RULING:* Parties to appear and be ready for court trial. A failure to appear may result in the imposition of sanctions.

Case Number: 24STCP00598 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: 25 Hearing Date: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 Case Name: Juan Recalde v. Adolfo Landeros Case No.: 24STCP00598 Motion: Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment Moving Party: Defendant Adolfo Landeros Responding Party: Unopposed Notice: IMPROPER as the Labor Commissioners Office was not served with the instant motion Tentative Ruling: The Hearing on Defendants Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment Entered on 02/26/2024 is CONTINUED to AUGUST 21, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Defendant is ordered to electronically file proper proof of service of the Motion upon the Labor Commissioner, as well as proof of service of the continued hearing date at least 10 court days prior to the continued hearing date. BACKGROUND On July 25, 2022, the Labor Commissioners Office heard claim number WC-CM-816672 (the Claim) regarding the alleged employment of Plaintiff Juan Recalde (Plaintiff). (Landeros Decl., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff sought to recover 57.75 hours of unpaid wages from August 5, 2020 to September 2, 2020, at the rate of $50.00 per hour from 3-D Engineering & Manufacturing Inc. (3-D Engineering) and Adolfo Landeros (Defendant). (Landeros Decl., ¶ 2.) After the hearing, the Labor Commissioner ordered 3-D Engineering and Defendant to pay Plaintiff the total amount of $15,231.14. (Landeros Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A.) According to the Order, Defendant was ordered to pay Plaintiff the sum of $11,255.85 of the total amount awarded. (Landeros Decl., ¶ 4; Ex. A.) In March of 2023, Defendant caused his attorney to communicate with Plaintiff regarding settlement of the Claim and a settlement was reached. (Landeros Decl., ¶¶ 5-6; Exs. B and C.) Plaintiff agreed to release the Claim with prejudice in consideration of payment of $15,231.14 from Defendant and 3-D Engineering. (Landeros Decl., ¶ 6; Ex. C.) A cashiers check was sent to Plaintiff by Defendants former counsel on March 16, 2023, for direct payment to Plaintiff in the amount of the Labor Commissioners award. (Landeros Decl., ¶ 7; Ex. D.) Plaintiff received and cashed the check and Defendant understood that the Claim was fully resolved and dismissed between the parties pursuant to the settlement. (Landeros Decl., ¶ 8.) Defendant states that his former counsel made a mistake in not delivering the actual cashiers check directly to the Office of the Labor Commissioner and instead delivered the payment directly to Plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the release. (Landeros Decl., ¶ 9.) Defendant contends that the Labor Commissioner requesting that judgment for the full amount of the award plus post-hearing interest and filing fees was based on mistake as this matter should have long been dismissed. (Landeros Decl., ¶ 10.) Defendant states that the subject judgment was obtained through mistake, excusable neglect, and inadvertence of his prior counsel as the payment was not mailed directly to the Labor Commissioners Office. (Landeros Decl., ¶ 11.) On February 26, 2024, the Labor Commissioner of the State of California (the Labor Commissioner) filed a Request That the Clerk Enter Judgment and Judgment on Final Order, Decision or Award of the Labor Commissioner. The Labor Commissioner sought a total judgment of $11,776.40 against Defendant. On February 26, 2024, the Court entered judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $11,776.40. On May 22, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment. Defendant seeks an order setting aside and vacating the judgment entered against him on February 26, 2024. Plaintiff did not oppose the instant motion; however, the Labor Commissioner was not served with the motion. Given that the Labor Commissioner requested entry of judgment and judgment was entered pursuant to such request, the Labor Commissioner should have been given notice of the instant motion. MOVING PARTY POSITION Defendant argues that he entered into a settlement agreement and release with Plaintiff but sent payment of the award, by mistake, directly to Plaintiff instead of to the Labor Commissioner. OPPOSITION No opposition has been filed as of July 12, 2024. REPLY No reply has been filed as of July 12, 2024. ANALYSIS I. Setting Aside the Judgment A. Legal Standard The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) Relief under CCP § 473(b) is mandatory when based on an attorney affidavit of fault; otherwise, it is discretionary. Ibid . B. Discussion The Court references its recitation of the Declaration of Defendant from above and incorporates it herein. Defendants counsel declares that he sent a demand for satisfaction of judgment to Plaintiff on behalf of 3-D Engineering in LASC Case No. 24STCP00522 and Plaintiff informed counsel that he would submit an acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment in such case. (Yurcich Decl., ¶¶ 2-3; Ex. B.) Initially, the Court fails to see the relevance of Defendants counsel demanding satisfaction of judgment in a separate action to which Defendant is not a party. The Court finds that Defendant has shown a basis to set aside the judgment on grounds of mistake and inadvertence. However, as stated above, although the motion is unopposed, the Labor Commissioner should have been given notice of the motion. While the Labor Commissioner is not a party to this action, given that it did request judgment against Defendant and judgment was entered pursuant to such request, the Labor Commissioner should have been afforded the opportunity to oppose the instant motion. II. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on Defendants AMENDED Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment Entered on 02/26/2024 to Wednesday, August 21, 2024, at 10:00 AM in this department, so that the Labor Commissioner can be served with the motion. Defendant is ordered to electronically file proper proof of service of the Motion upon the Labor Commissioner, as well as proof of service of the continued hearing date at least 10 court days prior to the continued hearing date. The Moving party is ordered to give notice of this Courts Ruling and to attach a copy of the Court's Tentative Ruling, as exhibit A to said notice.

MSL20-03827 CASE NAME: FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC VS. VYACHESLAV ANDREYEVSKIKH *MOTION/PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION PETITION TO CONFIRM CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION AWARD FILED 4/30/24 FILED BY: FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC *TENTATIVE RULING:* The court grants the petition to confirm the contractual arbitration award in accord with the award of arbitrator J. Timothy Nardell dated January 8, 2024. A judgment shall be entered in conformity with the award, and petitioner is entitled to recover the total sum of $16,020.32 from respondent.

S-CV-0051880 JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. vs. Powell, Jeremy ** NOTE: telephonic appearances are strongly encouraged Appearance required. Complaint is not at issue - Need responsive pleading, default or dismissal as to Defendant(s): Powell, Jeremy

SIERRA CENTRAL CREDIT UNION VS. GOODWIN Case Number: 23CVG-00253 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of bankruptcy. Plaintiff filed a Case Management Statement informing the Court that the stay is still in effect. The matter is continued to Tuesday, January 23, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 63 for status of bankruptcy. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.