Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Victoria Voight

*Please contact Judicial Courtroom Assistant, Adriana Ramirez, at (831) 636-4057 x124 or aramirez@sanbenitocourt.org with any objections or concerns personal delivery at the Defendant’s residence. Moreover, the claim that his legal name is Arnulfo as opposed to Arnold doesn’t establish a misidentification, the proof of service reflects that the Defendant personally identified himself to the process server at the time of service and personally accepted the delivery of the Summons and Complaint. (Plaintiff’s MPA Ex D.) No evidence that another individual was server or that service was directed to the wrong person has been provided. The declaration is self-serving and unsupported by any corroborating evidence. A bare denial alone is insufficient to overcome the presumption created by the Proof of Service by a registered process server pursuant to Evidence Code section 647.

Proposed Ruling: Defendant’s motion is denied.

CL-24-00687 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Victoria Voight 6-26-2026

On calendar for Defendant’s motion to set aside judgment entered pursuant to stipulation and order based on CCP§473.5

Petitioner: Jon Blanda, Edgar Lopez (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.)

Defendant: Self Represented (Voight, Victoria)

The underlying case is for the collection of consumer debt. The case initially resolved pursuant to a stipulation signed by the parties in 2024, with dismissal pursuant to CCP§664.6, allowing the Plaintiff to vacate the dismissal if there was a failure to comply with the terms of the stipulation in the matter.

Argument: Defendant asserts she was never served properly in this matter, and she knew nothing of the matter until she received the notice in April regarding setting aside dismissal. She assumed the court would notify her if the Plaintiff’s motion was granted. She didn’t know of the judgment until mid-May. She reports that there are slight differences in height, weight, and estimated age of the person served and her own statistical information.

Opposition: Plaintiff notes that on 11-10-24 Defendant signed a stipulation for entry of judgment and installment payments with dismissal of action with consent to the court retaining jurisdiction pursuant to CCP§664.6. The Defendant then failed to make any payments under the stipulation on 1-15-25 Plaintiff sent Defendant written notice she was in default under the Stipulation and provided an additional 7 days to cure the default. The default was not cured. True and correct copy of that written notice is provided as EX 1 to Lopez Declaration. On 4-27-26 the court entered judgment pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation after considering Plaintiff’s noticed motion pursuant to 664.6. The Defendant has

*Please contact Judicial Courtroom Assistant, Adriana Ramirez, at (831) 636-4057 x124 or aramirez@sanbenitocourt.org with any objections or concerns failed to rebut the presumption of proper service pursuant to Ev. §647; the unsupported denial of service does not overcome the filed proof of service or the documentary record. The Evidence Code provides that the return of a registered process server’s proof of service established a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. Where there is facially valid proof of service the facts stated in the return are presumed true unless the opposing party produced sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption. (EV §604; Palm Property Investments LLC v.

Yadegar (2011) 194 Cal. App. 4 th 1419, 1427-8.) Defendant admits she resided at the address where personal service was effected but contends she was not the person served citing slight differences in height and weight. The Defendant identifies no other person who allegedly accepted the documents at her home. Defendant’ s own subsequent conduct in signing the stipulation undermines her denial. Paragraph 17 of the stipulation expressly provides Defendant acknowledges receipt of the Summons and Complaint, and that her signing the Stipulation constitutes appearance in the action.

Nor does the Defendant put forward any meritorious defenses or any basis to set aside the stipulation on equitable grounds. She does not deny she signed the stipulation, dispute the payment terms, or claim to have made the required payments. She does not deny she was sent the written notice of her default providing additional time to cure, or that the Judgment entered exceeded the amounts in the Stipulation.

Legal Authority: Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 allows for set aside of a default judgment for lack of service on the defendant. Essentially, a defendant who has never been served with process is not within the jurisdiction of the court. Thus, the judgment entered is not merely voidable, it is void because of the lack of personal jurisdiction. A void judgment may be attacked at any time.

Analysis. This is not a situation where Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 would be applicable. While the Defendant argues that she was not properly served with process, her signature on the stipulation and order settling this case act as her acceptance of this court’s jurisdiction over her in order to create a binding stipulation and order, as framed in the stipulation itself. While the Defendant argues that she is unfamiliar with the debt and doesn’t have information about its legitimacy, again the stipulation and order that she signed in this matter belie such assertions.

The language of the stipulation she signed indicates not only her acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction but also the responsibility for the debt as well as the repayment terms specified in the stipulation. Further, she consented to the reservation of jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 allowing the court to vacate the prior dismissal and enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff should she default on the terms of the stipulation.

Moreover, in Plaintiff’s own declaration, she admits that she resides at 640 Duran Court, where personal service was effected. While the Defendant asserts she is in fact shorter than the height range given in the description and is presently heavier than the weight range provided, the differences are minor. Coupled with the Defendant’s own signature on the stipulation acknowledging service of the summons and complaint at paragraph 17 of that document, the court is satisfied that the Defendant was within the court’s jurisdiction. It also

*Please contact Judicial Courtroom Assistant, Adriana Ramirez, at (831) 636-4057 x124 or aramirez@sanbenitocourt.org with any objections or concerns beggars understanding that the Defendant now asserts she did not understand that a lawsuit existed at the time she signed the stipulation, which is directly contradicted by the document and the circumstances surrounding it. Proposed ruling:

Defendant’s motion is denied.

CL-25-00486 JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Maria Diaz De Leon 6-26-2026

On calendar for Plaintiff’s 5-1-2026 Motion for requests for admissions to be deemed admitted.

Plaintiff: Alexander Balzer Carr (JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.)

Defendant: Self Represented (Diaz De Leon, Maria)

6-23-25 Complaint for $5,723.58. This case involves efforts to collect on consumer debt. Plaintiff raises the following causes of action: 1) Breach of Contract

7-9-25 Defendant Answers, answer admits all of the statements in the complaint as true. She notes she is enrolled in a debt relief program, which did not take care of this credit card with the Plaintiff. She asserts she enrolled due to a financial hardship and could not continue paying the card.

Argument:

5-1-26: Plaintiff’s counsel states on 12-17-2025 that they served the Defendant with their requests for admission, set one, which were due 35 days thereafter. No responses have been received to date. Pursuant to CCP§2033.280 et seq, if a party propounding requests for admission has properly served those requests and the time to respond has expired without any response having been received, the court shall order that the requests be deemed admitted and documents requested to be admitted as genuine be deemed genuine.

5-1-25 Declaration of E. Oyama, counsel for Plaintiff in support. States that on 12-17-2025 the requests for admissions were served with a proof of service, appended as EX 1(¶2.) Declarant further affirms that no responses have been received. (¶3.)

Legal Argument: Any party may obtain discovery by written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion related to a fact, or application of law to a fact. (CCP§ 2033.010.) Similarly, a request for admissions may relate to a matter in controversy between the parties. (Id.) A