Motion to Quash Service of Process Under CCP §418.10 or Alternatively, to Set Aside Default Judgment
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.
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?”
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
Complaint filed after possession of the subject property was no longer at issue.
Because the Court’s jurisdiction is limited under Code of Civil Procedure section 916 during the pendency of the appeal, the Court confines its analysis to whether the judgment is void on its face. Having determined that it is not, the Court declines to address Defendant’s remaining grounds for relief from the default judgment. Those issues are presently before the Court of Appeal in Case No. G066443 and are therefore beyond the scope of this Court’s limited jurisdiction while the appeal remains pending.
Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Counsel is to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.