Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment
hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear. Consequently, the Court took the motion off calendar due to the moving party’s nonappearance.
On June 15, 2026, Plaintiff filed the present motion (ROA 59), which is substantially identical to the motion previously filed as ROA 30. The motion references Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, stating that they are “attached and incorporated hereto.” However, no exhibits were attached to or filed with ROA 59.
Further, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(a) and (b), require that a memorandum of points and authorities accompany any motion. The rule expressly provides that the Court may construe the absence of a memorandum or supporting evidentiary documents as an admission that the motion lacks merit and may deny the motion on that basis.
Accordingly, because Plaintiff failed to file the exhibits referenced in the motion as required by the California Rules of Court, Plaintiff has not provided an adequate factual basis for the relief requested. The motion is therefore DENIED.
6 Ocean Breeze Villas On 6/12/2026, the Motion to Vacate was continued at the request of specially vs. Floridia appearing counsel for the Plaintiff, Kevin Mello, to 6/24/2026. Defendant filed Proof of Service by Mail (ROA 55) that Plaintiff was mailed notice of the Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment on 6/1/2026.
The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment (ROA 51) and Declaration in Support of the Motion (ROA 52).
The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Application for and Renewal of Judgment (ROA 35), Proof of Service by Mail (ROA 41), Memorandum of Costs After Judgment (ROA 43), Writ of Execution (ROA 44), Writ of Possession Returned – Wholly Satisfied (ROA 22), Writ (07/11/2018 Issued) (ROA 32), and Declaration of Address Verification (ROA 47).
California Code of Civil Procedure § 683.170(a), states “The renewal of a judgment pursuant to this article may be vacated on any ground that would be a defense to an action on the judgment, including the ground that the amount of the renewed judgment as entered pursuant to this article is incorrect, and shall be vacated if the application for renewal was filed within five years from the time the judgment was previously renewed under this article.” California Code of Civil Procedure §683.160(a) states, “The judgment creditor shall serve a notice of renewal of the judgment on the judgment debtor.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The original address of the premises subject to the unlawful detainer proceedings was 6401 Warner Ave. #525, Huntington Beach, CA 92647, based on the Writ of Possession (ROA 22), which was filed on 9/30/2015.
The Writ that was issued in July of 2018 as to the Defendants at an address of 7701 Warner Ave. Apt. L174, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 (ROA 32). The Proof of Service by Mail (ROA 41) serves both Defendants at 6200 Edinger Ave., Apt. 832, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 on 1/7/2026 with the “Notice of Renewal of Judgment, Application for Renewal of Judgment”, although the Application for and Renewal of Judgment (ROA 35) was filed with the Court on 10/7/2025. ROA 42 shows two different addresses for service, including 7281 La Mancha Cir, Apt. C, Huntington Beach, CA 92647, signed 2/6/2026, less than a month from the Proof of Service by Mail (ROA 41).
Defendant Anna Grabowska provided documentation that she has resided at the same location, 7281 La Mancha Circle Apt. C, Huntington Beach, CA 92648, since June 2020. Plaintiff failed to timely serve on the Defendant the Application for Renewal of Judgment at the correct address for the Defendant. Additionally, there is no evidence lodged with the Court showing that the Plaintiff complied with the requirement to notify the judgment debtor that the judgment debtor has 60 days within which to move to vacate or modify the renewal.
The Court VACATES the Renewal of Judgment and QUASHES the Writ of Execution issued on 4/22/2026.
The Court Clerk is to notify the Orange County Sheriff’s Department that the Writ of Execution issued on 4/22/2026 is QUASHED.
The Court Clerk is to provide notice of the Court’s ruling. 7 Flight Phase I Owner, The Court has read and considered: Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of LLC vs. Incipio, LLC Process Under CCP §418.10 or Alternatively, to Set Aside Default Judgment (ROA 221), Request for Judicial Notice (ROA 234), Declarations in Support (ROA 222 & 223), Appendix of Authorities (ROA 230 & 232), Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 240), Declaration in Support (ROA 242), Request for Judicial Notice (ROA 249), Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash Service of Process Under CCP §418.10 or Alternatively, to Set Aside Default Judgment (ROA 251), and Objection (ROA 253).
Ruling on the Objections will be provided to Counsel via Zoom Chat.
Request for Judicial Notice ROA 249 is GRANTED. Request for Judicial Notice ROA 234 is GRANTED.
California Code of Civil Procedure section 916 operates to stay proceedings in the trial court upon the filing of an appeal from a judgment or order embraced by, or affected by, the appeal. While section 916 generally divests the trial court of jurisdiction over matters involved in the appeal, a limited exception permits the trial court to vacate a judgment that is void on its face.
Upon review of the evidence and arguments presented, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to establish that the judgment is void on its face. The record reflects that Defendant made a general appearance in this action by filing an Answer to the original Complaint. The record further demonstrates that Defendant’s counsel of record was served with subsequent notices, pleadings, and filings throughout the litigation, including the Amended