On December 18, 2012 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Fia Card Services Na,
and
Thomas, Anthony A,
for Rule 3.740 Collections $10,000 or Less Limited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
File No. 12—12979—0 ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto)
Robert Scott Kennard SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFOR MA
State Bar NO. 117017 COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
Gloria Zarco W3HZE4856AM
State Bar No. 199702
NELSON & KENNARD
5011 Dudley Blvd. Bldg. 250 Bay G
McClellan, CA 95652
P.O. BOX 13807
Sacramento, CA 95853
Telephone: (916) 920—2295
Facsimile: (916) 920—0682
Attorneys for Assignee of Plaintiff
FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A.
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT - LIMITED CIVIL CASE
ll
12 FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A., CASE NO. CIVR81209658
l3
Plaintiff,
14 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION
VS. TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT
15
vvvvvvvvvv
ANTHONY A THOMAS Date: 2/15/2024
16 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Defendant Dept: S—37
17
18
l9 Plaintiff FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A., (hereinafter “Plaintiff”)
20 hereby submits the following memorandum of points and authorities in
21 opposition to Defendant ANTHONY THOMAS (hereinafter “Defendant”)
22 Motion to Vacate Renewal of the Judgment.
23 I.
24 SUMMARY OF FACTS
25 On or about December 18, 2012, Plaintiff FIA CARD SERVICES,
26 N.A., LLC, filed its Complaint against Defendant ANTHONY A THOMAS.
27 Defendant was served by substitute service on January 15, 2013.
28 Plaintiff’s process server served the summons and complaint at 1507
OPPOSITION TO MOTION - l
S. Euclid Ave Apt F, Ontario, CA 91762, on a Juliana Fierro, a
Hispanic, female approximately 50 years of age, 5’4” in height,
weighing 200 pounds, brown hair and brown eyes, who confirmed she
was a co—occupant of Defendant’s property. Having received no
response to the Complaint, Plaintiff FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A., mailed
and filed its application for default judgment with the court on
November l4, 2013. Judgment was entered on November 22, 2013.
In 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel initiated a judgment enforcement
action by serving a bank levy. Defendant filed a Claim of Exemption
10 in July 2014, claiming all funds were exempt social security
ll benefits. The garnishee’s return report from the bank indicated the
12 same — that there were no funds in excess of those that are exempt.
l3 Plaintiff took no further enforcement action.
14 On September l4, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Application for
15 Renewal of Judgment. Defendant now brings this motion to vacate the
16 renewal of judgment, alleging that the Defendant was not properly
17 served. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff opposes this
18 motion and requests this Court deny the requested relief.
l9 II.
20 DISCUSSION
21 A. Defendant does not set forth a basis in law to vacate the
22 renewal of judgment.
23 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §683.170, under which Defendant brings
24 this motion to vacate, allows a judgment debtor to apply by noticed
25 motion to vacate the renewal of a judgment on “any ground that would
26 be a defense to an action on the judgment.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
27 §683.l70(a).
28
OPPOSITION TO MOTION - 2
Document Filed Date
January 31, 2024
Case Filing Date
December 18, 2012
Category
Rule 3.740 Collections $10,000 or Less Limited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
File No. 12—12979—0 ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto) Robert Scott Kennard SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFOR MA State Bar NO. 117017 COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO Gloria Zarco W3HZE4856AM State Bar No. 199702 NELSON & KENNARD 5011 Dudley Blvd. Bldg. 250 Bay G McClellan, CA 95652 P.O. BOX 13807 Sacramento, CA 95853 Telephone: (916) 920—2295 Facsimile: (916) 920—0682 Attorneys for Assignee of Plaintiff FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A. 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT - LIMITED CIVIL CASE ll 12 FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A., CASE NO. CIVR81209658 l3 Plaintiff, 14 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION VS. TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT 15 vvvvvvvvvv ANTHONY A THOMAS Date: 2/15/2024 16 Time: 8:30 a.m. Defendant Dept: S—37 17 18 l9 Plaintiff FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A., (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) 20 hereby submits the following memorandum of points and authorities in 21 opposition to Defendant ANTHONY THOMAS (hereinafter “Defendant”) 22 Motion to Vacate Renewal of the Judgment. 23 I. 24 SUMMARY OF FACTS 25 On or about December 18, 2012, Plaintiff FIA CARD SERVICES, 26 N.A., LLC, filed its Complaint against Defendant ANTHONY A THOMAS. 27 Defendant was served by substitute service on January 15, 2013. 28 Plaintiff’s process server served the summons and complaint at 1507 OPPOSITION TO MOTION - l S. Euclid Ave Apt F, Ontario, CA 91762, on a Juliana Fierro, a Hispanic, female approximately 50 years of age, 5’4” in height, weighing 200 pounds, brown hair and brown eyes, who confirmed she was a co—occupant of Defendant’s property. Having received no response to the Complaint, Plaintiff FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A., mailed and filed its application for default judgment with the court on November l4, 2013. Judgment was entered on November 22, 2013. In 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel initiated a judgment enforcement action by serving a bank levy. Defendant filed a Claim of Exemption 10 in July 2014, claiming all funds were exempt social security ll benefits. The garnishee’s return report from the bank indicated the 12 same — that there were no funds in excess of those that are exempt. l3 Plaintiff took no further enforcement action. 14 On September l4, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Application for 15 Renewal of Judgment. Defendant now brings this motion to vacate the 16 renewal of judgment, alleging that the Defendant was not properly 17 served. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff opposes this 18 motion and requests this Court deny the requested relief. l9 II. 20 DISCUSSION 21 A. Defendant does not set forth a basis in law to vacate the 22 renewal of judgment. 23 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §683.170, under which Defendant brings 24 this motion to vacate, allows a judgment debtor to apply by noticed 25 motion to vacate the renewal of a judgment on “any ground that would 26 be a defense to an action on the judgment.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 27 §683.l70(a). 28 OPPOSITION TO MOTION - 2