Lvnv Funding Llc V. Jeannine Richmond Aka Jeannine E Colvin

Case Number: 24VECV01449 Hearing Date: July 22, 2024 Dept: T [TENTATIVE] ORDER: Plaintiff Ally Banks Application for Writ of Possession is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Introduction Plaintiff Ally Bank (Plaintiff) moved for a writ of possession against Defendant Antonio White (Defendant). An opposition was due on July 9, 2024 and none was filed. Discussion Plaintiff failed to file proofs of service on the Summons and Complaint, as well as the Notice of Application for Writ of Possession. Without proofs of service, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Defendant. Without proofs of service, Defendant was not provided proper notice and opportunity to be heard on the application. Any orders issued without proper notice and opportunity to be heard are void. Plaintiffs application for writ of possession is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ALTERNATIVELY, IF PLAINTIFF FILES THE PROOFS OF SERVICE FOR THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AS WELL AS THE APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION PRIOR TO THIS HEARING DATE, THEN&. [TENTATIVE] ORDER: Plaintiff Ally Banks Application for Writ of Possession is GRANTED. The Court waives an undertaking from Plaintiff Ally Bank. Plaintiffs proof of service showed that Defendant was properly served with the summons and complaint and properly notified of the hearing on the application. (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 512.010.) Plaintiff provided a declaration to show the probable validity of their claim and right to repossess the vehicle from Defendant because Plaintiff provided evidence showing: Defendants entry into the Written Lease Agreement (Lease) for the vehicle; Plaintiff assignors performance of delivery of the vehicle; Defendants breach in failing to pay; and Plaintiffs damages. (Code Civ. Proc sec. 512.040.) (James Singleton Decl. pars. 5-9.) Plaintiff further provided that the vehicle is in the custody and control of Defendant and located at Defendants residence. (Singleton Decl. par. 10.) (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 512.060.) With Defendants breach, Defendant no longer has rights to possess and further refused to surrender the vehicle. Plaintiff has shown their rights to possession. Plaintiff submitted the amount owed on the account and the value of the vehicle. (Singleton Decl. pars. 6-7.) The evidence showed that the account balance exceeds the value of the vehicle and no equity exists for the Defendant. The Court finds that the requirement to post an undertaking is waived. (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 515.010.) Plaintiffs application for writ of possession is GRANTED.

SIERRA CENTRAL CREDIT UNION VS. BOWEN Case Number: 23CVG-00603 This matter is on calendar for confirmation of Judgment. The Court’s June 5, 2024 Ruling after trial ordered Defendant to submit a proposed judgment for the Court’s signature. No proposed judgment has been filed. No status report has been filed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

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.

TRUIST BANK VS. STOCK, ET AL. Case Number: 23CV-0203124 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions issued on May 28, 2024 to Plaintiff Truist Bank and counsel, Gurstel Law Firm, P.C., for failure to timely serve pleadings on Defendant Chris Stock pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(b) and Local Rule of Court 3.03 and failure to timely seek default on Defendant Bright Nichols Stock pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(g). “The complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint.” CRC 3.110(b). Local Rule 3.03 mandates that Plaintiff serve Defendant with Local Form LF-CIV-100 and file a proof of service within the same timeframe. The Complaint in this matter was filed on September 1, 2023 and no proof of service has been filed for defendant Chris Stock. Plaintiff did not address defendant Chris Stock in the written response to the Order to Show Cause. CRC 3.110(g) requires Plaintiff to file a request for entry of default within 10 days after the time for service of the responsive pleading has elapsed. Defendant Bright Nichols Stock was served on October 7, 2023. The time for filing a responsive pleading expired November 6, 2023. No extension was requested or granted. No default was requested. On July 2, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Declaration that asserts that a default packet “is pending to be drafted.” No explanation is given for the noncompliance with CRC 3.110. No default judgment has been requested. With no sufficient excuse for the delay, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate Order of Sanctions. The Court will issue an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal pursuant to Gov’t Code Section 68608(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve the complaint and LF-CIV-100, failure to timely seek default judgment, and failure to timely prosecute. The hearing on the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal is set for Monday, September 9, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 63. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal. This matter is also calendared on Monday, September 9, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 63 for review regarding status of service. ****************************************************************************************** 9:00 a.m. – Review Hearings ******************************************************************************************

Motion for Summary Judgment on WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A vs CVPS2306119 Complaint for Collections by WELLS RAMORAN FARGO BANK, N.A. Tentative Ruling: The unopposed Motion of Summary Judgment of Plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is GRANTED. There is no dispute of material fact and Plaintiff has established that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff is awarded principal of $5,157.82 plus costs of $800 pursuant to a Memorandum of Costs filed April 4, 2024.

Case Number: 23PSCV01387 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: G Plaintiff Wex Inc.s Application for Default Judgment Respondent: NO OPPOSITION TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff Wex Inc.s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $285,786.65. BACKGROUND This is a collections action. From May 2022 to July 2022, Plaintiff Wex Inc. (Wex) alleges Defendant Little Fat Trucking became indebted to Wex for a fuel card account in the total amount of $237,576.05. On May 8, 2023, Wex filed a complaint against Little Fat Trucking and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) open book account and (2) account stated. On May 9, 2024, Wexs process server served Little Fat Trucking through the California Secretary of State. On June 20, 2024, the Court entered default against Little Fat Trucking after they failed to timely file an answer. On the same day, Wex submitted the present application for default judgment. A case management conference is set for July 16, 2024. LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has filed to timely respond or appear. A party seeking judgment on the default by the court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (7) exhibits as necessary; and (8) a request for attorneys fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1800.) ANALYSIS Wex seeks default judgment against Little Fat Trucking in the total amount of $340,918.37, including $237,576.05 in damages, $102,386.57 in interest, and $955.75 in costs. Because the Court finds Wex submitted sufficient evidence, the court GRANTS their application for default judgment with the following modification: While Wex requests $102,386.57 in interest, the Court finds this amount was calculated incorrectly and deems the correct amount of awardable interest to be $47,254.85 (10% of $237,576.05 divided by 365 = $65.0893287671 per diem multiplied by 726 days (07/21/2022 07/16/2024). Accordingly, the total judgment is reduced to $285,786.65. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Wexs application for default judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $285,786.65 (Damages of $237,576.05 + Interest of $47,254.85 + Costs of 955.75).

CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., VS. CASTRO Case Number: 23CVG-00362 Tentative Ruling on Motion for Terminating Sanctions: Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. moves for terminating sanctions by striking Defendant Vincent Castro’s answer. Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $1,572.75 for each motion. Procedural Defect: As a procedural matter, this motion was served both via mail and email on May 9, 2024, and set for a hearing date of June 7, 2024. CCP § 1005(b) requires all moving papers be served 16 court days before the hearing. This notice period is extended by five calendar days if the motion is served by mail. Id. For service by email, the notice period is extended by two court days. CCP § 1010.6(a)(3). This timeframe is calculated by counting backwards from the hearing date but excluding the hearing date. CCP § 12c. Starting with the June 7, 2024, hearing date and counting backwards 16 court days (excluding the Court holiday of May 27, 2024) then five calendar days for out of state mailing this matter should have been served by mail no later than, May 4, 2024. For email the last day to serve the motion was April 24, 2024. The motion was served on May 7, 2024, and was untimely under either calculation. Based on insufficient statutory notice, the motion is denied. Merits of Motion: Even if the motion had been timely noticed, terminating sanctions are not warranted. Terminating sanctions are a “drastic penalty and should be used sparingly.” Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604. A terminating sanction should not generally be imposed by the court until less severe sanctions have been attempted and were unsuccessful. Id. No justification has been provided as to why terminating sanctions are appropriate in this context instead of lesser evidentiary or issue sanctions. Without additional evidence, terminating sanctions would be premature. The motion is DENIED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court which will be modified to reflect the denial. Review Hearing: This matter is also on calendar for review regarding trial re-setting. The Court designates this matter as a Plan II case and intends on setting it for trial no later than October 15, 2024. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to discuss available trial dates.

Matter on calendar for Tuesday, July 16, 2024, Line 3, PLAINTIFF JPMORGAN CHASE BANK. N.A.'s Motion For Order That Matters In Request For Admission Of Truth Of Facts Be Deemed Admitted. The matter is continued to August 12, 2024, on the court's motion. =(302/JPT).