Search anything: case name, case number, motion type, judge, or party

ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP LLC VS. RICH HATLESTAD

Plaintiff Asset Capital Recovery Group, LLC brings this motion for judgment on the pleadings. Defendant Rich Hatlestad aka Rich Brown has not filed opposition. Plaintiff's request for judicial notice of the pleadings, motion to deem the Requests for Admission admitted, and the motion's Order.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2019

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

ASSET CAPITAL VS. CROWN NORTH

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS FILED BY ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP, LLC * TENTATIVE RULING: * The motion is unopposed and appears meritorious. It is granted.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2018

ASSET CAPITAL VS ROGERS

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FILED BY ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP, LLC * TENTATIVE RULING: * Unopposed motion granted. Plaintiff shall have judgment in the amount of $3,204.02. .

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2017

ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY VS. LIB

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR ORDER TO DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED FILED BY ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP, LLC * TENTATIVE RULING: * The motion is unopposed and appears to be meritorious. It is, therefore, granted.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2017

ASSET CAPITAL VS. CROWN NORTH

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR ORDER TO DEEM MATTERS FILED BY ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP, LLC * TENTATIVE RULING: * The motion is unopposed and appears meritorious. It is granted.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2017

ASSET CAPITAL VS ATTA

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PUR TO WRITTEN STIPULATION FILED BY ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP, LLC * TENTATIVE RULING: * Stipulated Judgment has been signed by the court.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY VS. LIB

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS FILED BY ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP, LLC * TENTATIVE RULING: * There is no proof of service showing that the moving papers were served on defendant. Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2017

ASSET CAPITAL VS. PICAZO

HEARING ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FILED BY ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP, LLC * TENTATIVE RULING: * No opposition has been filed. The motion is granted. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff in the principal amount of $1,150.00.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2019

ASSET CAPITAL VS. FALLEY

FILED BY ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP, LLC, * TENTATIVE RULING: * No opposition has been filed. The motion is granted. Judgment may be entered in the total amount of $2505.43.

  • Hearing

    Apr 29, 2019

ASSET CAPITAL VS. DOROTHY DOUGLAS

HEARING ON CLAIM OF EXEMPTION FILED BY ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP, LLC * TENTATIVE RULING: * Appearance required. Judgment debtor stated that she is receiving disability and does not know when she will be able to return to work. She receives $803.00 per week from EDD. She has offered to pay the amount of $50 per pay period on the debt, which sounds reasonable to the Court under the circumstances.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2017

ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY VS. DUA

FILED BY ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP, LLC * TENTATIVE RULING: * No opposition has been filed. The motion is granted as prayed. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff in the principal amount of $3,100.00 plus costs in the amount of $501.00 and Attorney’s fees in the amount of $610.00, less credits in the amount of $2,029.57, for a total judgment of $2,181.43.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2019

ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY VS. DUARTE

HEARING ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION FILED BY ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP, LLC * TENTATIVE RULING: * Denied. The motion does not competently establish the default.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY VS. LIB

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS FILED BY ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP, LLC * TENTATIVE RULING: * There is no proof of service showing that the moving papers were served on defendant. Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice. If moving party timely served the papers and has a copy of a file-stamped proof of service, it may give notice (in the usual way) that it wishes to argue the tentative ruling, and bring a copy of the file-stamped proof of service to the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2017

ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP LLC VS. CODY COUSINS

.: 37-2016-00044384-CL-CL-CTL CASE TITLE: ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP LLC VS. CODY COUSINS [IMAGED] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Limited CASE TYPE: Rule 3.740 Collections EVENT TYPE: Opposition to Claim of Exemption - Wage Garnishment (Civil) CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Claim of Exemption - Notice of Hearing, 03/05/2018 The matter shall be heard at oral argument. No tentative ruling will be issued.

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2018

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

ASSET CAPITAL VS KING

HEARING ON DEMURRER TO CONSUMER CREDIT COLLECTIONS CMPL (CRC 3.740) of ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP, LLC FILED BY TROY KING * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant’s Demurrer filed on November 12, 2019 is overruled without prejudice. The motion and accompanying papers do not indicate that the motion has been properly served on the Plaintiff according to the provisions of CCP §1013 or that the Defendant has satisfied the meet and confer requirements of CCP §430.41.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ASSET CAPITAL VS. PULLER

FILED BY ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP, LLC * TENTATIVE RULING: * On September 20, 2019 the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of the case. On January 27, 2020 Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the dismissal of the case and to enter judgment pursuant to the stipulation of the parties under CCP §664.6 and based upon defendant’s default in making payments required by the settlement. No opposition has been filed by the defendant.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ASSET CAPITAL VS FALLEY

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO WRITTEN STIPULATION FILED BY ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP, LLC, * TENTATIVE RULING: * Denied. The declaration of John P. Kenosian does not establish the competence of the witness to testify to the material facts, i.e., that defendant defaulted on the stipulation. (See C.R.C., Rule 5.111(b)(2) [“A declaration must be based on personal knowledge and explain how the person has acquired that knowledge.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2019

ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP LLC VS. BAEZ-PECORADO

.: 37-2016-00015466-CL-CL-NC CASE TITLE: ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP LLC VS. BAEZ-PECORADO [IMAGED] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Limited CASE TYPE: Rule 3.740 Collections EVENT TYPE: Opposition to Claim of Exemption - Wage Garnishment (Civil) CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Toni Baez-Pecorado's claim of exemption is granted in part. The Court orders that the sum of $100 per pay period shall be garnished.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2018

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP, LLC VS. ERIC TURNER ET AL

Kenosian Set for hearing on Monday, March 5, 2018, Line 4, PLAINTIFF ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP, LLC Notice Of Motion And Motion For Entry Of Judgment Pursuant To Written Stipulation Of All Parties. Asset's motion for entry of judgment pursuant to stipulation is GRANTED. No opposition filed.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2018

ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP, LLC VS. JAYWAUN CLARK

The motion of Plaintiff Asset Capital Recovery Group, LLC ("Plaintiff") to transfer this action to the Superior Court of California, County of Placer is GRANTED. The Court finds good cause for transfer because, after commencing this action, Plaintiff discovered new facts indicating Sacramento County is not a proper court. As the grounds for transfer are based on the commencement of the action in an improper court, Plaintiff shall pay transfer fees. (Code Civ. Proc. § 399(a).)

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP LLC VS GUERRA

The unopposed motion for judgment on the pleading, filed by plaintiff Asset Capital Recovery Group, LLC, is denied. Plaintiff appears to rely entirely on the fact that plaintiff's requests for admissions were deemed admitted. This is not accurate. See ROA # 16. The Court did not adopt its tentative ruling, which had tentatively granted the unopposed motion to deem matters admitted.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2019

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP LLC VS GUERRA

The unopposed motion for judgment on the pleading, filed by plaintiff Asset Capital Recovery Group, LLC, is denied. Plaintiff appears to rely entirely on the fact that plaintiff's requests for admissions were deemed admitted. This is not accurate. See ROA # 16. The Court did not adopt its tentative ruling, which had tentatively granted the unopposed motion to deem matters admitted.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2019

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

ASSET CAPITAL VS KING

HEARING ON DEMURRER TO CONSUMER CREDIT COLLECTIONS CMPL (CRC 3.740) of ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP, LLC FILED BY TROY KING * TENTATIVE RULING: * The “collections” complaint in this case was filed on August 2, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP, LLC, A LIMITED Q VS. REY G STOTOMAS ET AL

Ntc Of Mtn And Mtn For Order To Deem Matters Admitted, Memo Of P & A; Dec And Pos Set for hearing on Wednesday February 22, 2012 line 10 - PLAINTIFF ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP, LLC, A LIMITED's Motion For Order To Deem Matters Admitted, Pro Tem Judge Nils Rosenquest, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2012

  • Judge

    Nils Rosenquest

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP V. WITHEROW

Hearing Re: Claim of Exemption. The judgment creditor levied on the judgment debtor’s wages. The judgment debtor claims her expenses exceeds her take home pay in the amount of $943 each month and states that all earnings are necessary for her support. The financial statement also states that she is the subject of an earnings withholding order of ...

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2017

1 2 3     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.