Motion to Set Aside or Vacate Judgment, Default or Dismissal in MS Services, LLC vs Connie Martin| Trellis.Law

On July 03, 2017 a Judgment was filed involving a dispute between Ms Services, Llc, and Connie L Martin, for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited(06) in the District Court of Santa Clara County.

Preview
170V312565
Santa Clara — Civil

R. Guillermo

Electronically Filed
Shawn M. Olson, Esq. (SBN 245688) by Superior Court of CA,
OLSON LAW FIRM
County of Santa Clara,
7372 Prince Drive, Suite 104 on 3/4/2020 2:02 PM
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Reviewed By: R. Guillermo
Telephone: (714) 847-2500 Case #17CV312565
Facsimile: (714) 847-2550 Envelope: 4120683

Attorney for Plaintiff
MS SERVICES, LLC

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA —- DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE
10
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
11

12
MS SERVICES, LLC, a Wyoming limited ) Case No: 17CV312565
liability company, ) Assigned for All Purposes to:
13 ) Judge: Hon. Sunii E. Kulkarni
Plaintiff, ) Dept: 8
14 V.
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CONNIE
15 L. MARTIN’S MOTION TO VACATE
CONNIE L. MARTIN; and DOES |through
VOID JUDGMENT, VACATE DEFAULT,
16 10, Inclusive, VACATE ASSIGNMENT ORDER, AND
DISMISS COMPLAINT; DECLARATION
17 Defendants. OF SHAWN M. OLSON, ESQ. IN
SUPPORT THEREOF
18

19
Date: March 17, 2020
20 Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 8
21

23 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
24 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff MS SERVICES, LLC (“Plaintiff”) hereby
25 opposes defendant CONNIE L. MARTIN’s Motion to Vacate Default Judgment and Dismiss
26 Complaint (“Motion”) as follows:
27 Mit
28 Ml

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND DISMISS CASE-
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff MS SERVICES, LLC (“Plaintiff”) has been attempting to collect on its

judgment against defendant CONNIE MARTIN (“Martin” or “Defendant”) for almost two

years. Martin, with the help of her business partner, Darryl Johnson (“Johnson”), have been

evading Plaintiff's collection efforts, which ultimately led Plaintiff to file a Voidable Transfer

Action against them in November 2019. Martin's venue Motion concedes that venue in Santa
Clara County was proper and it appears that it is simply a last-ditch effort to stop the Voidable

Transfer case and perfect their actions of concealing her assets and protecting them from

10 creditors like Plaintiff.
11 Il. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
12 Defendant's Motion fails for several reasons:
13 (1) The Motion relies heavily on Civil Code section 2984.4, but such motions are
14 required to be filed no later than 60 days after Plaintiff's first collection activity took place

15 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 585.5(b), yet Plaintiff's collection activities began in
16 November 2018 when it levied $2,519.15 against Martin's bank account.
17 (2) The Motion fails because it did not include Defendant's required affidavit under
18 oath that the action was not commenced in the proper venue pursuant to Civil Code § 2984.4
19 and she cannot do so because she admittedly lives in Santa Clara County. Moreover, the
20 Motion fails to provide the required proposed pleading (See Code of Civil Procedure §
21 585.5(c)).
22 (3) Defendant was properly sub-served at her admitted address and her Motion based
23 on lack of proper service lacks any probative value.

24 (4) Defendant's argument that the judgment is void fails because the judgment roll does
25 not show any irregularities.
26 Mit
27 Mit
28 Mil

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND DISMISS CASE-
1 IIl.STATEMENT OF FACTS

On July 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed its complaint with the Santa Clara County Superior

Court alleging Breach of Contract and Account Stated against Martin based on a written

agreement concerning a motorhome. On August 30, 2017, the summons and complaint were

served via substituted service on Martin at: 1000 Rucker, Gilroy, CA (“Property”) and “Darrel
Jones” was the co-occupant that received the summons and complaint. (See Exhibit “D” to

Martin’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RIN”).

Martin never responded to the lawsuit, so Plaintiff obtained a default judgment on June

21, 2018. (See Martin’s RJN, Ex. E). On August 15, 2018, in an attempt to enforce the

10 judgment against Martin, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Assignment Order with the Court
11 requesting assignment of Martin’s real estate commissions from Water Wheel Enterprises dba
12 Exit Realty Keystone (“Keystone”) to Plaintiff. (Decl. of Olson, §4). The motion was served
13 on Martin via mail the same day at her Property. (Decl. of Olson, 5). On October 9, 2018,
14 the Honorable James L. Stoelker heard and granted Plaintiffs Motion for Assignment Order.

15 (Decl. of Olson, §6).
16 Plaintiff served the Notice of Ruling on the Assignment Order to Martin on October 18,
17 2018 and had the signed Assignment Order personally served to her on October 24, 2018.
18 (Decl. of Olson, 7, Ex. 1).
19 On November 30, 2018, Plaintiff levied Martin’s bank account and secured $5,813.30;

20 however, $3,294.15 was returned to Johnson in January 2019 because he shared the account

21 with her (badge of fraud-insider). (Decl. of Olson, 48, Ex. 2).
22 Between October 11, 2018 and March 19, 2019, no payments were ever assigned
23 pursuant to the Assignment Order, despite the fact that Martin had a property listed in escrow

24 on the Multiple Listing Service that closed and was subject to the assignment order (badge of
25 fraud). (Decl. of Olson, 49). During this time, Martin and Johnson changed the listing to
26 remove her name from it and added his to conceal Martin’s assets from the Assignment Order
27 (badge of fraud).
28 Mil

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND DISMISS CASE- 3
On February 13, 2019, the Court issued an Abstract of Judgment, and it was

subsequently recorded with the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office on March 5, 2019.

(Decl. of Olson, §10; Ex. 3). The County Recorder mails recorded documents to the affected

property; in this case the abstract would have been delivered to Martin’s Property as listed in

the abstract.

On March 20, 2019, Plaintiff served a Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum on Keystone that

requested documents showing commissions that were paid to Martin; her current counsel

objected to and responded the subpoena. (Decl. of Olson, 911, Ex. 4).

On or about April 15, 2019, Plaintiff discovered that Martin formed The Performance

10 Real Estate Team, LLC (“Performance”) on October 12, 2018, just one day after the
11 Assignment Order was entered (badge of fraud). Plaintiff also discovered that Johnson worked
12 as a real estate agent for both Keystone and Performance (badge of fraud- insider). Further,
13 Performance's website stated and still states, the following along the bottom of its webpage:
14 “Darryl Johnson and Connie Martin of Performance Real Estate Team” (badge of fraud).

15 (Decl. of Olson, §12).
16 On June 13, 2019, Plaintiff served another subpoena on Keystone and also on
17 Performance. On July 24, 2019, Johnson responded to Plaintiff's subpoena to Performance by
18 stating that Martin received no commissions from Performance, and that the three properties
19 referenced above were originally co-listed by both Martin and Johnson, but because of "certain
20 circumstances," he became the listing agent of record for those properties (badges of fraud).
21 (Decl. of Olson, 913, Ex. 5).

22 Also on July 24, 2019, Plaintiff received a response from Keystone concerning the
23 subpoena that provided that Martin received no commissions from Keystone, and documents

24 were produced showing that Johnson received close to $91,000 in commissions for the sale of
25 the three properties discussed above. (Decl. of Olson, 14, Ex. 6).
26 Due to the multiple badges of fraud occurring in efforts to conceal Martin’s assets,
27 Plaintiff filed the Voidable Transfer lawsuit against Martin, Johnson, and others. (Decl. of
28 Olson, 15).

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND DISMISS CASE-
On December 17, 2019, Darryl Johnson was served with the voidable transfer

complaint at Martin’s Property; Martin was personally served with the lawsuit followed by
Martin at the same address on December 19, 2019. (Decl. of Olson, §16, Ex. 7). The Gilroy

address is the exact same address service that was effectuated in 2017. Now, over one-and-a-

half years later, Martin files the instant Motion to Set Aside the Default and Judgment.

IV.LEGAL ARGUMENT

A. The Motion Fails Because It Was Not Filed Within 60 Days of Plaintiff's
Collection Activities.

Code of Civil Procedure § 585.5 (b) provides in pertinent part:

10 “When a default or default judgment has been entered without
full compliance with Section ... 2984.4 of the Civil Code, or
11
subdivision (b) of Section 395, the defendant may serve and file
12 a notice of motion to set aside the default or default judgment
and for leave to defend the action in the proper court. The notice
13 of motion shall be served and filed within 60 days after the
defendant first receives notice of levy under a writ of execution,
14
or notice of any other procedure for enforcing, the default
15 judgment.”

16 In this case, Plaintiff's collection activities began in August 15, 2018 with its motion
17 for assignment order, which was served on Martin. Plaintiff served Martin the Notice of

18 Ruling on the Assignment Order to Martin on October 18, 2018 and also had the signed
19 Assignment Order personally served to her on October 24, 2018 at the Property.
20 In addition, Plaintiff recovered pursuant to a writ of execution $2,519.15 from Martin

21 in November 2018 and recorded an Abstract on March 5, 2019, both of which Martin clearly

22 had knowledge of. Finally, Plaintiff issued two subpoenas in March and June of 2019 in

23 efforts to collect on its judgment and Plaintiff had her current attorneys of record handle those
24 responses. Therefore, since Martin had notice of all these collection activities that occurred

25 well before 60 days when the Motion was filed, it fails pursuant to Section 585.5(b).
26 Mit
27 Il

28 Mit

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND DISMISS CASE-
B. The Motion Should Be Denied Because Martin Lives in Gilroy, Which Is in Santa

Clara County.

California Code of Civil Procedure § 585.5(c) provides the following:

A notice of motion to set aside a default or default judgment and
for leave to defend the action in the proper court shall ... be
accompanied by an affidavit showing under oath that the action
was not commenced in the proper court according to Section
1812.10 or 2984.4 of the Civil Code or subdivision (b) of Section
395. The party shall serve and file with the notice a copy of the
answer, motion, or other pleading proposed to be filed in the
action.
In addition, Section 585.5(d) states: “Upon a finding by the court that the motion was

10 made within the period permitted by subdivision (b) and that the action was not commenced in

11 the proper court, it shall set aside the default or default judgment on such terms as may be just

12 and shall allow such a party to defend the action in the proper court.” (emphasis added)

13 In this case, Plaintiff did not and cannot declare under penalty of perjury that she does

14 not live in Santa Clara County. To the contrary, Martin lived at the Property when she was

15 served the underlying lawsuit and also the Fraudulent Transfer complaint. The best Martin

16 could do is declare that she does not live with “Darrell Jones,” though admittedly she does live

17 with and share bank accounts with Darryl Johnson.

18 Additionally, the Motion does not provide the proposed pleading to be filed. Therefore,

19 the Motion does not comply with Section 585.5(c) and should be denied.

20 C. Defendant Was Properly Sub-Served.

21 In California, process can be served via substituted service by personally delivering the

22 papers to a person on behalf of the party and by mailing the papers to the address of the person

23 to be served pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20.

24 According to Section 415.20(b), to serve an individual by substituted service, the

25 process server must determine that the service papers cannot, with reasonable diligence, be

26 personally served. (See also Earl W. Schott, Inc. v. Kalar, (1993) 20 Cal. App.4th 943, 945).

27 Whether the process server was reasonably diligent is usually determined on a case-by-case

28 basis; however, two or three attempts at personal service at a proper place will usually satisfy

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND DISMISS CASE-
this requirement. (Rodriguez v. Cho, (2015) 236 Cal. App.4th 742, 750; See also Bein v.

Brechtel-Jochim Grp., (1992) 6 Cal. App.4th 1387, 1391-92 and Espindola v. Nunez, (1988)

199 Cal. App.3d 1389, 1391-92 (three attempts were sufficient to show reasonable diligence

when process server, on fourth attempt, left copy of husband’s summons with wife)).

Additionally, it has been held that the filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable

presumption that the service was proper. (M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc. v. Superior

Court, (1978) 80 Cal. App.3d 762, 770 [quoting from Judicial Council Rep., supra, com. to §

417.10).
Lastly, in deciding whether service was valid, the statutory provisions regarding service

10 of process “should be liberally construed to effectuate service and uphold the jurisdiction of the
11 court if actual notice has been received by the defendant.” (/d. at 1437).
12 Martin contends that she does not live with a “Darrell Jones,” yet remains suspiciously
13 silent about living with, partnering with, and sharing bank accounts with Darryl
14 Johnson. Martin does not and cannot declare that she does not live at the Property because she

15 was personally served there multiple times, including the service of the Assignment Order and
16 service of process for the Voidable Transfer action.
17 The process server made multiple attempts to serve Martin and ultimately had the
18 Summons and Complaint sub-served on Johnson. Court's do not require perfection from
19 process servers to get the actual name of a cohabitant, especially in this case when it is clear

20 and convincing that Martin lives with Darryl Johnson, who likely gave the process server a
21 fake name that is too close to realistically dispute.
22 Finally, Martin cannot claim to not have known about the lawsuit because her bank
23 account was levied a year and a half ago, among other collection activities that she knew about.

24 Therefore, since the evidence strongly supports the process server's declaration that the
25 subservice was proper, the Motion should be denied on this basis.
26 D. Defendant’s Contentions Concerning an Alleged Void Judgment are Meritless.
27 A judgment or order which is void on the face of the record may be set aside by the
28 court that made it on the ground that is void. See Meyers v. Washington, 211 Cal. App.2d 767,

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND DISMISS CASE-
771; See also Luckenbach vy. Krempel, 188 Cal. 175, 176-177: “It is well settled that a judgment

or order which is void on its face, and which requires only an inspection of the judgment-roll

or record to show its invalidity, may be set aside on motion at any time after its entry, by the

court which rendered the judgment or made the order.”

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 670: “In superior courts the following papers,
without being attached together, shall constitute the judgment roll: (a) In case the complaint is

not answered by any defendant, the summons, with the affidavit or proof of service; the

complaint; the request for entry of default with a memorandum indorsed thereon that the

default of the defendant in not answering was entered, and a copy of the judgment...”

10 In this case, the summons, complaint, proof of service, default entry, and judgment do
11 not evidence that the judgment is void and Defendant's attempts to go beyond the judgment roll
12 are improper and should be disregarded. Defendant further cannot contend the judgment is
13 voidable.
14 In Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn., (1972) 7 Cal. 3d 94, the court indicates that

15 the onus is on a defendant to protect its rights concerning proper venue under Code of Civil
16 Procedure § 396a by: (1) filing a motion to advise the court of the defect in the complaint or
17 providing an informal letter to the court; (2) attack the erroneous entry of default on appeal; or
18 (3) seek relief via a timely motion to set aside default judgment pursuant to Code of Civil
19 Procedure § 473. Id. at 118-119. The court in Barquis further held that Section 396a does not
20 affect the trial court's jurisdiction, nor does it render a judgment erroneously entered as void for
21 lack of jurisdiction. /d. at 119 and 122.
22 Thus, the face of the judgment roll and the judgment against Martin is valid,
23 enforceable, and the Motion should be denied.

24 Mit
25 Ml
26 Mit
27 Mit
28 Mil

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND DISMISS CASE-
Vv. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny Defendant’s

Motion in its entirety.

Respectfully Submitted,
OLSON LAW FIRM

Dated: March 4, 2020 By: Low
Shawn M. Olson, Esq., Attorney for
Plaintiff MS SERVICES, LLC

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND DISMISS CASE-
DECLARATION OF SHAWN M. OLSON

I, Shawn M. Olson, declare as follows:

1 Tam an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all of the Courts of the State of

California, including all U.S. District Courts, and am the attorney of record for plaintiff MS

SERVICES, LLC (hereafter “Plaintiff’), in the above entitled action. The facts stated in this

Declaration are based upon my own personal knowledge and if called upon to testify, I could

and would competently testify as to the facts stated herein.

2. On July 3, 2017, I caused Plaintiff's complaint for breach of contract and account stated

against defendant CONNIE MARTIN (“Martin”) to be filed with the Santa Clara County

10 Superior Court.
11 3. Martin ultimately failed to answer the complaint and a default judgment was obtained
12 on June 21, 2018.

13 4. On August 15, 2018, I caused to be filed a Motion for Assignment Order with the Court
14 requesting assignment of Martin’s real estate commissions from Water Wheel Enterprises dba

15 Exit Realty Keystone (“Keystone”) to Plaintiff.
16 5. Also on August 15, 2018, I caused the Assignment Order motion to be served on
17 Martin via mail the same day at her property located at 100 Rucker Ave., Gilroy, CA
18 (“Property”).
19 6. On October 9, 2018, the Honorable James L. Stoelker heard and granted Plaintiff's

20 Motion for Assignment Order.
21 7. Plaintiff served the Notice of Ruling on the Assignment Order to Martin on October 18,
22 2018 and had the signed Assignment Order personally served to her on October 24, 2018. A
23 true and correct copy of the Notice of Ruling with the proof of service via mail attached, as

24 well as the proof of personal service of the Assignment Order is attached hereto as Exhibit “1.”
25 8. On November 30, 2018, Plaintiff levied Martin’s bank account and secured $5,813.30;

26 however, $3,294.15 was returned to Darryl Johnson (“Johnson”) in January 2019 because he
27 shared the account with her. A true and correct copy of the Memorandum of Garnishee
28 received from the sheriff after it was delivered to them by Wells Fargo Bank is attached hereto

as Exhibit “2.”

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND DISMISS CASE- 10
9. Between October 11, 2018 and March 19, 2019, no payments were ever assigned

pursuant to the Assignment Order. During this time, I discovered that Martin had a property

listed in escrow on the Multiple Listing Service that closed and was subject to the assignment

order, and that Martin and Johnson changed the listing to remove her name from it and added

his to conceal Martin’s assets from the Assignment Order.

10. On February 13, 2019, the Court issued an Abstract of Judgment, and it was

subsequently recorded with the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office on March 5, 2019. A

true and correct copy of the recorded Abstract of Judgment is attached hereto as Exhibit “3.”

11. On March 20, 2019, I caused to be served a Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum on Keystone

10 that requested documents showing commissions that were paid to Martin; her current counsel
11 objected to and responded the subpoena. True and correct copies of both the Subpoena and the
12 response by Martin’s counsel are attached hereto as Exhibit “4.”
13 12. On or about April 15, 2019, I received information from Plaintiff wherein Martin
14 formed The Performance Real Estate Team, LLC (“Performance”) on October 12, 2018, just

15 one day after the Assignment Order was entered, at which point I researched and determined
16 whether Johnson worked as a real estate agent for both Keystone and Performance. Further,
17 Performance's website stated and still states, the following along the bottom of its webpage:
18 “Darryl Johnson and Connie Martin of Performance Real Estate Team.”
19 13. On June 13, 2019, I caused to be served another subpoena on Keystone and also on

20 Performance. On July 24, 2019, Johnson responded to Plaintiff's subpoena to Performance by
21 stating that Martin received no commissions from Performance, and that the three properties
22 referenced above were originally co-listed by both Martin and Johnson, but because of “certain
23 circumstances,” he became the listing agent of record for those properties. True and correct

24 copies of the aforementioned the Subpoena to Performance and the response by Johnson are
25 attached hereto as Exhibit “5.”
26 Mit
27 Mit
28 Mil

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND DISMISS CASE- 11
14. Also on July 24, 2019, Plaintiff received a response from Keystone concerning the

subpoena that provided that Martin received no commissions from Keystone, and documents

were produced showing that Johnson received close to $91,000 in commissions for the sale of

the three properties discussed above. True and correct copies of the Subpoenas and the
response thereto are attached hereto Exhibit “6.”
15. On November 22, 2019. I caused to be filed a Voidable Transfer lawsuit against Martin,

Johnson, and the other parties believed to be assisting Martin in concealing her assets.

16. On December 17, 2019, Darryl Johnson was served with the voidable transfer

complaint at Martin’s Property; Martin was personally served with the lawsuit followed by

10 Martin at the same address on December 19, 2019. True and correct copies of the Proofs of
11 Service of Summons for the related Voidable Transfer Case are attached hereto as Exhibit “7.”
12 I declare under the penalty of perjury in accordance with the laws of the state of
13 California that the foregoing is true and correct.
14

15 DATED: March 4, 2020 Com
Shawn M. Olson, Esq.
16

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND DISMISS CASE- 12
013
170V312565,
Santa Clara — Civil

V. Taylor

Electronically Filed
Shawn M. Olson, Esq. (SBN 245688) by Superior Court of CA,
OLSON LAW FIRM County of Santa Clara,
7372 Prince Drive, Suite 104 on 10/18/2018 4:10 PM
Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Reviewed By: V. Taylor
Telephone: (714) 847-2500 Case #17CV312565
Facsimile: (714) 847-2550 Envelope: 2074036

Attorney for Plaintiff
MS SERVICES, LLC

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA —- DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE
10
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
11

12
MS SERVICES, LLC, a Wyoming limited ) Case No: 17CV312565
liability company, ) Assigned for All Purposes to:
13 ) Judge: Hon. James L. Stoelker
Plaintiff, ) Dept: D-13
14 V. )
) PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT CREDITOR MS
1S SERVICES, LLC’S NOTICE OF RULING
CONNIE L. MARTIN; and DOES | through ) ON MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT
16 10, Inclusive,
ORDER
17 Defendants.
18 Date: October 9, 2018
Time: 9:00 a.m.
19 Dept.: D-13

20
221 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
22 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 9, 2018, plaintiff/judgment creditor MS

23 SERVICES, LLC’s (“Judgment Creditor”) Motion for an Assignment Order (“Motion”) was

24 set for hearing in Department D-13 of the above-entitled Court.

25 No opposition papers to Judgment Creditor’s Motion were served or filed by

26 defendant/judgment debtor CONNIE L. MARTIN.

27 Mt

28 Ml

JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S NOTICE OF RULING ON MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT ORDER-

014
The Court issued a tentative ruling on October 5, 2018 granting Plaintiff's Motion,
which became the final order of the Court on October 9, 2018. A true and correct copy of the

Court’s tentative ruling is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

OLSON LAW FIRM

Dated: October 15, 2018 By: JP—
Shawn M. Olson, Esq., Attorney for
Judgment Creditor MS SERVICES, LLC

14
15

20
21

24
25

JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S NOTICE OF RULING ON MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT ORDER-

01
EXHIBIT
66 A”

016
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Department 16, Honorable Drew C. Takaichi (for Dept. 13, Hon. James Stoelker)
TBA, Courtroom Clerk
TBA, Court Reporter
191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M.
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS
DATE:
October 9, 2018 TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PREVAILING PARTY SHALL PREPARE THE ORDER OR AS STATED
OTHERWISE BELOW.
(SEE RULE OF COURT 3.1312 - PROPOSED ORDER MUST BE E-FILED BY
COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED PER 3.1312(C))

EFFECTIVE JULY 24, 2017, THE COURT WILL NO LONGER PROVIDE
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS FOR CIVIL TRIALS OR LAW AND MOTION
HEARINGS. SEE COURT WEBSITE FOR POLICY AND FORMS.

TROUBLESHOOTING TENTATIVE RULINGS
If you see last week’s tentative rulings, you have checked prior to the posting of the
current week’s tentative rulings. You will need to either “REFRESH” or “QUIT” your
browser and reopen it. If you fail to do either of these, your browser will pull up old
information from old cookies even after the tentative rulings have been posted.
exieresins ——
LINE # CASE _ CASE TITLE_ RULING
rm EE SRS
Ez
me a PREECE BE

eee ws aie
ME TE «GEE ee
SERED
si

017
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Department 16, Honorable Drew C. Takaichi (for Dept. 13, Hon. James Stoelker)
TBA, Courtroom Clerk
TBA, Court Reporter

|
191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M.

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS_ oe
Ee EE Me meee

ni
Bn RE ME 86
SS

Pc aac
LINES |17CV312565 MS Services,
LLC v Connie
i Plaintiff MS Services, LLC’s motion for enment
Martin lorder is GRANTED; proposed order is modified. No
| (opposition filed.

RE TOT

2
— —

018
PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
Jam an employee in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action; my business address is 7372 Prince Drive, Suite 104,
Huntington Beach, CA 92647.

On October 18, 2018, I served the foregoing document(s) described,
PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT CREDITOR MS SERVICES, LLC’S NOTICE OF RULING
ON MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT ORDER, to the interested parties in this action by
electronic service as follows:

Connie L. Martin
1000 Rucker Avenue
Gilroy, CA 95020
10
XX_ (BY MAIL) The package was delivered with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am
11 “readily” familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence
12 for mailing. The package was deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day in
the ordinary course of business. | am aware that on motion of a party served, service is
13 presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one
day after date of deposit for mailing an affidavit.
14

15 __ VIA Electronic Service. I certify that I will cause a copy of the above document to be
served upon the following counsel via One Legal on August 18, 2015.
16
(OVERNIGHT COURIER) I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail
AF
at Huntington Beach, California, United Postal Service. The envelope was mailed
18 with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am “readily” familiar with the firm’s
practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. The package
19 was deposited with United Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course
of business. I am aware that on motion of a party served, service is presumed
20
invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day
21 after date of deposit for mailing an affidavit.

22 XX_ (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that

7
the above is true and correct.
23

24 October 18, 2018 ll l
Date Michael Moore
25

JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S NOTICE OF RULING ON MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT ORDER- 3

019
170V312565
Santa Clara — Civil

L. Wang

Electronically Filed
"ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name and Address):
TAEPHONENB Superior Court OF CA,
Shawn Olson, 245688. (714) 847-;
Olson Law Firm nty of Santa Clara,
7372 Prince Drive, Suite 104 on/10/30/2018 9:42 AM
Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Ref, No. or Flo No. Reviewed By: L. Wang
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff | MS- Magi)
Insert name of cour, judicial eisbict or branch cour, any: Sas e #17CV312565
Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County Envelope: 2114873
191 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95113-1080
PLANTIFF:
MS SERVICES, LLC
DEFENDANT:
CONNIE L. MARTIN, et al.
DATE: TINE: DEPTIOV: ‘CASE NUMBER:
PROOF OF SERVICE 170V312565

1. At the time of service I was a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age and not a party to this action, and | served copies of
Assignment Order

2. Party Served: Connie L. Martin

3. Person Served: party in item 2

4. Date & Time of Delivery: 10/24/2018 8:37AM

5. Address, City and State: 1000 Rucker Avenue
Gilroy, CA 95020.

6. Manner of Service: Personal Service - By personally delivering copies.

Fee for Service: $ 75
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
Registered California process server. America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and
that this declaration was executed on 10/25/2018 at Los Angeles, California.
County: SANTA CLARA
Registration No.: PS1160
Kris W. Vorsatz
‘One Legal - 194-Marin
504 Redwood Blvd #223 Signature: 1
Novato, CA 94947
Our 21 GF
021
AT-467/EJ-152
INEV (Namie, Stale Bar number, and adchessy: LEVYING OFFICER (Neme ond Address):
Shawn M, Olson SBN 24508 33 Santa Clara Co. Sheriff - Civil Division
Olson Law Firm
7372 Prince Dr., Ste. 104, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 55 W. Younger Ave,
TELEPHONE NO: 714-847-2500 Faxno,; 714-847-2550 San Jose, CA 95110
E-MAIL ADDRESS: 408-808-4800
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): MS Services, LLC
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Sante Clara
STREET ADDRESS: 19] N. First St.
MAILING ADDRESS: same
cry ano zip cove: San Jose, CA 95113
BRANCH NAME: Downtown Courthouse
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: MS Services, LLC LEVYING OFFICER FILE NO:
IDEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Connie L. Martin 1€ C§OS7S
MEMORANDUM OF GARNISHEE COURT CASE NO.
(Attachment-Enforcement of Judgment) 17CV312565

NOTICE TO PERSON SERVED WITH WRIT AND NOTICE OF LEVY OR NOTICE OF
im does not apply
ATTACHMENT: This memorandum must be completed and mailed or delivered to the
levying officer within 10 days after service on you of the writ and notice of levy aa ee a ainthgs? Po |
or attachment unless you have fully complied with the levy. Failure to complete and
return this memorandum may render you liable for the costs and attorney fees incur-
ted in obtaining the required information.
— RETURN ALL COPIES OF THIS MEMORANDUM TO THE LEVYING OFFICER—

4. a. Gamishee (name): Wells Fargo Bank
b. Address: 17590 Monterey St.
'gan Hill, CA 95037
2, Judgment creditc (name): MS Services, LLC
3. [2] (Check if applicable.) The garnishee holds neither any property nor any obligations in favor of the judgment debtor.
4. If you will not deliver to the levying officer any property levied upon, describe the property and the reason for not delivering it;

NOTH70IN
REPOGRT

5. For writ of execution only. Describe any property of the judgment debtor not levied upon that is in your possession or under your
control:

NOTHING TO REPORT

(Continued on reverse) Page 1 of2
Fomn Approved {ox Optional Use MEMORANDUM OF GARNISHEE Cote Civ, Proc, §§ 488.610,
ATAG7IEJ-152 [Revised July1, 2013} (Attachment-Enforcement of Judgment) 1.030

022
a= —
<=
AT LS

Aakw 4¢0V312505
6, ou SWEIToT omen debinr which yout wi ley ying
frie ly the =n= nourd and
offer, dassbethe ins
2S = tote Pons omer

OTHING TG REPORT

7, Dasccbs the amount and tims af any abil ion bwed-ioth: Sornent debtor that js levied upon butts a yet due and payable.

NOTHING a REPORT

8. For vat of secians only, Describe the amount and terms of any obligation owed to the judgment debtor that is not levied upon:

- NOTHING TO REPORT
=

8, Describe any claims and rights of other persons ip the property or abligafion levied upon that are known ip you and the ames
and atkireaten,of the other persons

WELLS COB ASK THIS LEVY REACHES ONE (OR MORE) DEPOSIT ACCOUNTIS) IN THE NAME OF
LEVY PROCESSING A PERSON(S) OTHER THAN THE JUDGEMENT DEBTOR
HMAC S3928021 WITHTHE JUDGEMENT DEBTOR). PURSUANT TO CALIF.(ALONE OR TOGETER
CCP SECTION 700.160
PONLX,
BOX 29779 WELLS FARGO BANK. NA. WILL NOT PAY THE AMOUNT LEVIED UPON UNTIL
PHOE AZ, 85038 NOTIFIED TO To So, wiTH APPROPRIATE
as DOCUMENTATION BY THE LEVYING
PHONE BO-724-2000
FAX: RGS-S70-1561 == 1S CURRENTLY BEING HELD

DECLARATION OF GARNISHEE

“Tdectare under psnaity of pajury inder fhe laws of the ‘Stats of Calitorhie that the Foiegding is tue. eo Dr
Date:
Natasha Taylor
Nov
1.6 2088
» VYWoo
Anant

(TYRE
OR FPENT NAN) SURE)
Fyou need-more space ip provide the information required by imemorandim,
you mey =tsch addtional pages.
§Z. tots Tumber of pages afarhed:

AP ISTEAR Pree. Supt, 2003) | a OF GARNISHES ~
Page
2 nf2
(Ateebanent- Eaters of Judgmend

= ais ont

023
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Levy Processing Department
020 Bm) PO Box 29779 Mac# S4001-01E
VN Stes @) Phoenix, AZ 85038
Phone# 480/724-2000
Fax# 866/670-1561

ATTACHMENT for Third Party on
accounts

DARRYL JOHNSON
1000 RUCKER AVE
GILROY CA 95020-9241

WFB is currently holding $

Case Info

Judge

Sunil R. Kulkarni Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

March 04, 2020

Case Filing Date

July 03, 2017

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Judgment: MS Services, LLC vs Connie Martin

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties