DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CVP-0478·slo·Civil·Civil Action
Hearing about 1 month agoDENIED as moot

Belinda Lea Garcia v. Arron Franklin Powell

Motion to Advance Pre- Trial Hearing

Hearing date
Jul 14, 2026
Department
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffBelinda Lea Garcia
DefendantArron Franklin Powell

Ruling

Belinda Lea Garcia v. Arron Franklin Powell, 25CVP-0478

Hearing: Motion to Advance Pre-Trial Hearing

Date: July 14, 2026

Belinda Garcia filed this action against Arron Powell on December 17, 2025. Powell’s default was entered after Garcia filed a first amended complaint. Garcia filed a second amended complaint on June 8, 2026. Because the second amended complaint included substantive changes (i.e., a demand for a specific amount of damages), it had the effect of vacating Powell’s default. (Falahati v. Kondo (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 823, 831.)

On June 23, 2026, the Court ordered Garcia to serve the amended summons and second amended complaint both electronically and by certified mail with return receipt requested at the two addresses in Pennsylvania related to Powell. (See Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Order filed by Powell in case no. 25CVP-0453). Proof of such service has not yet been submitted. 1

Currently on calendar is Garcia’s Motion to Advance Pre Trial Hearing Date. The motion seeks “an order advancing the PRE TRIAL HEARING to 20 APR 2026 to replace the CASE MGMT HEARING that is scheduled for that date and time.” In light of the fact that April 20, 2026, has passed, the motion appears moot.

ORDER (PROPOSED)

Garcia’s Motion to Advance Pre Trial Hearing Date is denied as moot.

1 Garcia filed two proofs of service on June 12, 2026, reporting the second amended complaint and amended summons were served by certified mail to the two Pennsylvania addresses with an Acknowledgment of Receipt, as opposed to a return receipt requested. (Code Civ. Proc., §§415.30, 415.40.)

1

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share