Midland Funding Llc Vs. Hernandezgarcia

23CV-03377 Citibank, N.A. v. April Gonzalez Court Trial Appearance required. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of the court at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance.

Case Number: 23STCP04480 Hearing Date: July 11, 2024 Dept: 51 Tentative Ruling Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51 HEARING DATE: July 11, 2024 CASE NAME: Ace Funding Source LLC v. Azizi Imports Inc. d/b/a Azizi Imports, et al. CASE NO .: 23STCP04480 MOTION TO AMEND SISTER STATE JUDGMENT DUE TO CLERICAL ERROR UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 473(d) MOVING PARTY : Plaintiff Ace Funding Source LLC RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of July 8, 2024 REQUESTED RELIEF: 1. An Order amending the sister state judgment entered against Azizi Imports Inc. d/b/a Azizi Imports; Flyby Auto Transport LLC d/b/a Flyby Auto Transport; Oversight, LLC d/b/a Oversight; Flyby Auto Transport LLC; and Jonathan Azizi. TENTATIVE RULING: 1. Motion to Amend Sister-State Judgment due to Clerical Error is GRANTED. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff Ace Funding Source LLC (Plaintiff) filed an Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment (Application) against Defendants Azizi Imports Inc. d/b/a Azizi Imports; Flyby Auto Transport LLC d/b/a Flyby Auto Transport; Overight, LLC d/b/a Oversight; and Jonathan Azizi (Defendants). On December 12, 2023, the Clerk entered judgment. On April 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed notice of motion to amend the Sister-State Judgment. On May 13, 2024, the court continued the hearing on Plaintiffs motion to amend. On June 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of points and authorities and a declaration in support of its motion to amend the Sister-State Judgment. LEGAL STANDARD: Courts have inherent powers to correct judgments by a nunc pro tunc order where there has been a clerical error by clerk or by the judge himself, or where some provision of, or omission from, order or judgment was due to inadvertence, or mistake of court. ( Lane v. Superior Court of Siskiyou County (1950) 98 Cal App 2d 165, 219; Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d).) This includes clerical errors when made by an attorney who drafts the judgment. ( See In re Marriage of Kaufman (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 147, 151.) However, while a trial court may correct clerical errors and misprisions in a judgment, it cannot amend a judgment once entered, if the error to be corrected is a judicial one, for instance if it embodies an intentional action of the court even though legally erroneous. ( Kamper v. Mark Hopkins, Inc. (1947) 78 Cal App 2d 885.) ANALYSIS : Plaintiff contends that Defendants Flyby Auto Transport LLC d/b/a Flyby Auto Transport, Oversight, LLC d/b/a Oversight, and Flyby Auto Transport LLC were not added to the courts docket due to a clerical error. Plaintiff further contends that these Defendants were listed in the Sister-State Judgment packet documents. Plaintiff seeks to have these Defendants added to the docket. Here, the court agrees there is a clerical error. The Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment entered on December 12, 2023 identify all Defendants. However, the courts docket only includes Defendants Azizi Imports Inc. d/b/a Azizi Imports and Jonathan Azizi. While Plaintiff does not seek revision of the documents themselves, Plaintiffs request is still proper because it is clearly a clerical error that the docket does not accurately reflect the entered Judgment. (Code Civ. Proc. § 183(3).) Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to amend. CONCLUSION: For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows: 1. Motion to Amend Sister-State Judgment due to Clerical Error is GRANTED. Moving party is to give notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 11, 2024 __________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra Judge of the Superior Court

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Thursday, July 11, 2024, Line 13. PLAINTIFF MARTHE SCHREIBER's Motion To Set Aside The Judgment. Ordered off calendar as untimely filed. 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. 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/RBU)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 201700491367CUOR: Sherwood Valley HOA vs New Mission 06/25/2024 in Department 21 Motion to Amend Judgment to Add Additional Judgment Debtors on Alter Ego Theory Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 187 The morning calendar in courtroom 21 will normally begin between 8:30 and 8:45 a.m. Please arrive at the courtroom no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is called. The Court allows appearances by CourtCall but is not equipped for Zoom. If appearing by CourtCall, call in no later than 8:15 a.m. If you intend to appear by CourtCall, you must make arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No exceptions will be made. With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Riley's secretary, Ms. Sedillos at 805-289-8705, stating that you submit on the tentative. You may also email the Court at: Courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not communicate to the Court that you submit on the tentative or you do not appear at the hearing, the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative. Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized. Tentative Ruling The Court will CONTINUE the hearing on Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Sherwood Valley Homeowners Association’s motion to amend the judgment in this action to add Amy Levan and Japanese Apple Blossom LLC as additional judgment debtors to July 11, 2024, to be heard after third party Amy Levan’s motion to quash service of the motion. Analysis On June 11, 2024, Amy Levan filed opposition papers to the Association’s motion to amend the judgment. On the same date, she filed a motion to quash service of the Association’s motion to amend the Judgment on Levan, on the ground that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Levan because the service of the Association’s motion on her was deficient. Levan’s motion to quash service is presently set for hearing on July 9, 2024. 201700491367CUOR: Sherwood Valley HOA vs New Mission Because Levan’s motion to quash raises a fundamental question as to whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over Levan for the purposes of ruling on the Association’s motion to add her as an additional judgment debtor, the Court will rule on the motion to quash prior to ruling on the Association’s motion. (See, e.g., In re Marriage of Obrecht (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1, 17 [noting “the California rule…that an objection to personal jurisdiction must be finally determined…before the defendant can litigate any defense on the merits.”].) Accordingly, the Court cannot and should not hear the Association’s motion to add additional judgment debtors prior to hearing Levan’s motion to quash.

Case Number: BC682984 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Dept: 71 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles DEPARTMENT 71 TENTATIVE RULING MASSACHUSETTS EDUCATIONAL FINANCING AUTHORITY , vs. ALEXANDER . Case No.: BC682984 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Plaintiff Massachusetts Educational Financing Authoritys unopposed motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement is granted. Plaintiff is to submit a judgment to this Court within 10 days of this ruling. Plaintiff Massachusetts Education Financing Authority (MEFA) (Plaintiff) moves unopposed for an order to enter judgment because Defendant Alexander L Ross (Ross) (Defendant) defaulted on the terms and conditions of the parties settlement stipulation. (Notice of Motion, pg. 1; C.C.P. §664.6.) Background On November 09, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court for damages in the amount of $25,149.19 to recover the unpaid balance on a credit card account. (Decl. of Rohan ¶2.) On March 22, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendant executed a settlement agreement (Settlement Agreement), with the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the agreement. (Decl. of Rohan ¶3, Exh. A.) Pursuant to ¶10 of the agreement, if Defendant defaulted under the Settlement Agreement, then Plaintiff could obtain a judgment for the outstanding balance, pre-judgment interest and costs through declaration and order. ( See Decl. of Rohan ¶¶3-4, Exh. A at ¶10.) On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed by Defendant. Motion to Enforce Settlement Legal Standard C.C.P. §664.6 provides, as follows: If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement. (C.C.P. §664.6(a).) Disputes regarding the terms of the settlement (or other disputed facts) may be adjudicated on a C.C.P. §664.6 motion on the basis of declarations or other evidence. ( Malouf Brothers v. Dixon (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 280, 284; Machado v. Myers (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 779, 795-796 [stating court may resolve reasonable disputes over terms of settlement agreement but may not modify terms from what was agreed to by parties].) Discussion Plaintiff submitted evidence that Plaintiff and Defendant executed a Settlement Agreement that is signed by the parties and contains a provision authorizing this Court to retain jurisdiction under C.C.P. §664.6. (Decl. of Rohan ¶2 , Exh. A.) Accordingly, Plaintiff submitted evidence of the existence of a valid settlement agreement and is therefore entitled to an order enforcing the settlement. Plaintiffs counsel declares Defendant last made a payment on September 9, 2014. (Decl. of Rohan ¶4.) Plaintiffs counsel declares that on March 16, 2023, he last sent a cure letter to Defendant, stating that Defendant had ten days to cure the defect. (Decl. of Rohan ¶6.) Plaintiffs counsel declares Defendant did not cure the defect and Defendant has not made any other payments pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. (Decl. of Rohan ¶¶6-7.) Plaintiffs counsel declares the principal outstanding balance on Defendants account is $10,552.09. (Decl. of Rohan ¶8.) Plaintiff requests a judgment against Defendant in the amount of $11,073.93, reflecting a principal balance of $25,149.19, less $14,075.26 in credits for payments made, and $0.00 in costs. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement and enter judgment against Defendant in the amount of $11,073.93, reflecting a principal balance of $25,149.19, less $14,075.26 in credits for payments made, and $0.00 in costs is granted. Conclusion Plaintiffs unopposed motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement and enter judgment against Defendant in the amount of $11,073.93, reflecting a principal balance of $25,149.19, less $14,075.26 in credits for payments made, and $0.00 in costs is granted. Plaintiff is to submit a judgment to the Court within 10 days of this ruling. Moving Party to give notice. Dated: July _____, 2024 Hon. Daniel M. Crowley Judge of the Superior Court

CU23-05874 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Page 1 of 2 TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. Defendant’s answer admits the existence and amount of the indebtedness. (Answer, ¶ 10.) Defendant’s inability to pay is not a defense to the indebtedness. A borrower is legally obligated to repay the debt. (Ab Group v. Wertin (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1022, 1028.) And, a creditor has no duty to exercise reasonable forbearance in enforcing its legal remedies against a debtor. (Price v. Wells Fargo Bank (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 465, 479.) Page 2 of 2

Re: TD Bank, N.A. v. Singh Superior Court Case No. 21CECG01521 Hearing Date: July 10, 2024 (Dept. 503) Motion: by plaintiff for Judgment on the Pleadings Tentative Ruling: To continue the motion to Thursday, August 15, 2024, at 3:30 p.m., in Department 503, in order to allow the parties to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference, as required. If this resolves the issues, plaintiff’s counsel shall call the court to take the motions off calendar. If it does not resolve the issues, plaintiff’s counsel shall file a declaration, on or before Thursday, August 8, 2024, at 5:00 p.m., stating the efforts made. Explanation: Plaintiff did not satisfy the requirement to meet and confer prior to filing the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Code of Civil Procedure section 439 makes it very clear that meet and confer must be conducted in person, by telephone, or by video conference prior to filing the motion. While the parties may utilize written correspondence to help supplement the meet and confer process, the moving party is not excused from the requirement to do so in person, by telephone, or by video conference, unless it shows that the defendant failed to respond to the meet and confer request or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a)(3)(B).) The evidence did not show a bad faith refusal to meet and confer on defendant’s part that would excuse plaintiff from complying with the statute. The parties must engage in good faith meet and confer, in person, by telephone, or by video conference, as set forth in the statute. The court’s normal practice in such instances is to take the motion off calendar, subject to being re-calendared once the parties have met and conferred. However, given the extreme congestion in the court’s calendar currently, the court will instead continue the hearing to allow the parties to meet and confer, and only if efforts are unsuccessful will it rule on the merits. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Tentative Ruling Issued By: jyh on 7/8/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)

Case Number: 24NWCV00662 Hearing Date: July 11, 2024 Dept: C SOCAL LIEN SOLUTIONS LLC v. GOODMAN SANTA FE SPRINGS SPE LLC CASE NO.: 24NWCV00662 HEARING: 07/11/24 #6 Defendant GOODMAN SANTA FE SPRINGS SPE LLCs Demurrer to Plaintiffs Complaint is CONTINUED to Thursday, August 15, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-C . Moving Party to give notice. Defendant GOODMAN SANTA FE SPRINGS SPE LLC generally demurs to each cause of action contained in Plaintiffs Complaint. On June 26, 2024, before Plaintiffs Opposition to this Demurrer was due, Plaintiff filed and served a Notice of Errata intended to augment inadvertent errors in its complaint at Exhibit D. (Ntc. of Errata, 06/26/24.) It appears that this new Exhibit D intends to amend the initial pleading. A party may amend its pleading once without leave of court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike. (emphasis added.) (CCP §472.) Although Plaintiff did not file, serve, or move for leave to file an amended pleading, it is well-settled that California recognizes a general rule of&liberal allowance of amendments& ( Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) In the interests of judicial efficiency and in light of the liberal policy concerning amendments, the Court utilizes its discretion to grant Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint incorporating the new exhibit attached as Exhibit D to Plaintiffs Notice of Errata. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file and serve a First Amended Complaint within 5 days from the date of the Courts issuance of this Order. If the FAC is timely filed and served, the subject Demurrer will be taken off-calendar as MOOT on the continued hearing date. If the FAC is not timely filed and served, the Court will issue a ruling on this subject Demurrer, on the merits.