Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for (1) Emergency Hearing (2) Order Preventing Entry by Default against Betty Lim (3) Continuance of April 27, 2026 Trial Date; Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment
person is receiving housing assistance, they must provide documentation to establish their portion of the payment, which is determined by the Orange County Housing Authority here, not the Landlord. After Ms. Miscik married and moved into the premises, J.E.C., she acknowledged signing an updated lease in which the Orange County Housing Authority adjusted her rent obligation under her lease agreement and her approval for the program. There is no evidence before this Court that Ms. Miscik is under conservatorship or unable to make decisions for herself when she entered into the new lease and received the new amount, she was obligated to pay.
The Court DENIES the Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment.
The Court orders the Plaintiff to give notice of the Court’s ruling.
12 30-2026-01560537 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion for Summary 22702 Pacific Park Judgment (ROA 37), Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 50), Request for Judicial Drive, L.P. vs. Romeo Notice (ROA 52), and Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 54).
The Court takes Judicial Notice of the US House Committee on Financial Services Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the CARES Act, dated April 1, 2020.
Defendant’s counsel argues that 15 USC §9058(c) should be read alone and to mean that the CARES Act imposes a permanent 30-day notice requirement for all types of evictions. Whereas Plaintiff’s counsel argues that subsection (c) should be read in conjunction with subsection (b)(1)’s limitation to non- payment of rent. Neither Plaintiff’s counsel nor Defendant’s counsel cites to any California case law that decides this issue. Defendant’s counsel cites non- binding out-of-state cases that have reviewed this same issue. The language of 15 USC §9058(b) specifically discusses that a lessor of a covered dwelling may not initiate a filing for unlawful detainer due to non-payment of rent or other fees/charges. In subsection (c), in discussing notice requirements (c)(2) references back to subsection (b).
The Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant failed to establish that the Plaintiff’s failure to serve a 30-day Notice to Vacate on a case involving nuisance or illegal activity is a violation of the CARES Act and that the Plaintiff was required to do so under 15 USC §9058
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?”
13 30-2026-01553193 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for Newport Bluffs LLC (1) Emergency Hearing (2) Order Preventing Entry by Default against Betty vs. Lim Lim (3) Continuance of April 27, 2026 Trial Date (ROA 30), Declaration of Ron Nechemia (ROA 21), Declaration of Betty Lim (ROA 22) and the Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment (ROA 49).
The Court takes Judicial Notice of Proof of Service regarding Ron Nechemia (ROA 15), Proof of Service regarding Betty Lim (ROA 13), Request for Entry of Default (ROA 18), and Ron Nechemia’s Answer to the Complaint (ROA 7).
California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(b) “If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, as specified in Section 416.60, 416.70, 416.80, or 416.90, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person's dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left.
Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.” Nothing within the plain language of California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(b) requires that the person with whom service is made consent or authorize a person living in their dwelling house, usual place of abode, to be their agent of service for the substituted service to be complete.
California Evidence Code § 647 creates a rebuttable presumption that a registered process server's proof of service is true and that service was legally proper. This is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence, which places the burden on the challenging party to introduce contrary evidence to overcome it. The California Court of Appeal held that a court is not required to accept a self-serving statement by a party to rebut a process server’s declaration. (Rodriguez v. Cho (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 742, 751.)
Per ROA 18, the Court Clerk’s entered the Default Judgment against Defendant Betty Lim on 4/9/2026. The Proof of Service for Ms. Lim shows that substitute service was effectuated on 3/14/2026 by serving Isabella Wen (ROA 13) and that Mr. Nechemia (ROA 15) was served on the same date by substitute service to Isabella Wen. Mr. Nechemia filed an Answer to the Complaint on March 27, 2026. A default judgment was not entered against Ms. Lim until April 9, 2026, approximately 27 days after the substitute service. There is no evidence before this Court that Ms. Lim did not have access to a phone, email, or other form of communication for the 27 days. The Court finds that Ms. Lim's lack of communication and response to these court proceedings was inexcusable neglect.
Therefore, the Court DENIES the Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment.
Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.
14 30-2026-01538679 Motion will be on the second call. The Court Clerk's Office has not imaged Nunez vs. Nunez the documents filed on 5/11/26 for the Court to review as of 6 PM 5/12/2026, and the clerk's office is closed for the evening. 15 30-2026-01561206 On 5/6/2026, the Defendant’s Counsel filed Discovery Motions (ROA 33) Cherlin Lee Berndt, and requested sanctions against the Plaintiff. On 5/11/2026, Plaintiff’s Trustee of the Berndt Counsel filed an Opposition to the Discovery Motion and requested sanctions Family Trust, dated on the Plaintiff for failing to meet and confer prior to the filing of the October 25, 2001 vs. Discovery Motion. Berndt