Petition for relief from Government Code section 945
As for service on Debtor, Creditors filed a document entitled “Proof of Service by Mailing of Order to Show Cause.” The documents attached, however, are receipts for mailing; they are not proofs of service. Those receipts do not comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure for proofs of service and they do not identify what documents were served (as noted above, three documents had to be served). Moreover, they do not show the capacity in which the persons identified were served. The Debtor is a trust, and therefore must be served by service on the trustee in that capacity.
The court further notes, on July 9, 2026, Creditors filed a supplement to their application for an order to show cause to provide the court with a copy of a relevant quitclaim deed and the “Notice to Judgment Creditor Request for Application for Order for Sale of Dwelling (CCP 704.750).” There, however, is no proof of service showing this supplement was served on anyone. This document supplements the application for an order to show cause and therefore must be served just like the application.
Based on the foregoing service deficiencies, the hearing on the order to show cause is CONTINUED as stated above for Creditors to make proper service as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 704.770 and to give notice of this ruling. All proofs of service must be filed at least 10 days before the continued hearing date. The court finds good cause to conduct the hearing on the order to show cause beyond the 45-day period established by Code of Civil Procedure section 704.770. Creditors’ counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling
9. Highland Mariposa Homeowners Association vs. Hoffman 2026-01560973 Hearing VACATED and STATUS CONFERENCE SET based on notice of stay filed on May 6, 2026
10. M. vs. Huntington Beach Union High School District 2026-01563406 Before the court is the petition by B.M., a minor by and through his guardian, Brian Maclyman (Petitioner), for relief from Government Code section 945. As more fully set forth below, the petition is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 1, 2026, AT 2:00 P.M., IN DEPARTMENT C23, for proper service and notice.
Government Code section 946.6, subdivision (d), states, “A copy of the petition and a written notice of the time and place of hearing shall be served before the hearing as prescribed by subdivision (b) of Section 1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure on (1) the clerk or secretary or board of the local public entity, if the respondent is a local public entity . . . .”
Here, the petition was not served on the “clerk or secretary or board of the local public entity.” Instead, the proof of service shows the petition and supporting declaration were served on the “Insurance Department” for respondent Huntington Beach Union High School District (Respondent). That fails to comply with section 946.6, subdivision (d), and Respondent has not filed any opposition or taken any action to waive this defect or otherwise show it was properly served with the petition.
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?”
Moreover, Petitioner has not filed any notice or proof of service showing Petitioner gave Respondent notice of today’s hearing on the petition. The court set the hearing and gave notice to Petitioner. Respondent, however, has not yet appeared in this action and therefore has no address of record. As such, the court could not give Respondent notice of today’s hearing. It was Petitioner’s responsibility to provide such notice. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(c) requires a proof of service to be filed at least five court days prior to the hearing.
Based on the foregoing, the hearing on the petition is CONTINUED as set forth above to allow Petitioner to correct the service issues discussed above and provide proof of service. Petitioner’s counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
11. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club v. Tyler 2026-01565527 OFF CALENDAR; Hearing erroneously set.
12. David Haller vs. Gladys Haller 2025-01520273 Before the court is the motion to vacate sister-state judgment filed on May 1, 2026, by defendant and judgment debtor Gladys Haller (Gladys). As more fully set forth below, the motion is DENIED. By this motion, Gladys seeks to vacate the sister-state judgment this court entered in favor of plaintiff and judgment creditor David Haller (David) on October 20, 2025. The sister-state judgment is based on a Virginia judgment entered on or about June 6, 2025. Gladys brings the motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1710.40, arguing the sister-state judgment must be