N/A
On September 25, 2025, the court granted Petitioner’s request to deposit the surplus funds with the court for the court to adjudicate the owner of those funds. (ROA 16.) Petitioner subsequently deposited the $27,144 in surplus funds and was discharged from responsibility for distribution of the surplus funds. (ROA 21, 27.) No claim to the surplus funds, however, was asserted prior to or at the hearing on unresolved claims held on December 11, 2025, and the funds continue to remain on deposit with the court. (ROA 32.)
Claimant filed the motion on March 16, 2026, and the court conducted the initial hearing on this motion on May 28, 2026. At that time, the court continued the hearing to today’s date based on defects in the proof of service attached to the motion and the evidentiary showing in support of the motion as more fully described in the court’s May 28, 2026 Minute Order. Following that hearing, Claimant, through her daughter and power of attorney, submitted a request for judicial notice, a new declaration, and proofs of service showing service of these papers and notice of this hearing on all potential claimants identified in Petitioner’s petition.
Through her supplemental filings, Claimant has shown she was the record owner of the property immediately prior to the trustee’s sale. No other lienholder or claimant has come forward to state in other claim to the surplus funds. Claimant therefore has established she is entitled to the entirety of the surplus funds on deposit with the court. Based on the foregoing, Claimant’s motion and claim are GRANTED. Claimant’s request for judicial notice also is GRANTED. The clerk of the court is directed to release the deposited funds to claimant consistent with the written order to be signed by the court.
Claimant is ordered to submit a proposed order granting her claim. The order must identify the specific amount to be paid, to whom the check is to be made payment, and the address to which the check should be sent. The current proposed order is not sufficient. Claimant’s counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
10. Mary E. Schuchart, Trustee of The Schuchart Family Revocable Transferred to Department C66 to be heard in an unlawful detainer courtroom on August 12, 2026, as stated in the court’s August 3, 2026 Minute Order.
Trust vs. JMI Trading Inc. 2026-01570438 11. Signature Collection Properties, LLC vs. Academy West Investments, LLC 2021-01206266 OFF CALENDAR based on notice of withdrawal of motion filed on July 27, 2026.
12. Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC vs. Manukyan 2011-00457348 Before the court is the motion to vacate the judgment defendant Larisa Manukyan (Defendant) filed on June 4, 2026. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 683.170, Defendant seeks to vacate the renewed judgment entered on April 1, 2021, which renewed the default judgment entered against Defendant and in favor of plaintiff Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC (Plaintiff) on June 23, 2011. As more fully set forth below, the motion is DENIED.
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?”
First, the motion is untimely. On this motion, Defendant bears the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to vacate the renewal of judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 683.170. (American Contractors Indemnity Co. v. Hernandez (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 845, 848.) Based on the evidence presented, Defendant has not met that burden.
Defendant asserts she never received the notice of renewal Plaintiff filed on April 8, 2021, and claims to have served on Defendant on April 14, 2021. (ROA 36, Manukyan Decl., ¶ 13.) On April 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing it mailed the application for and now of renewal of judgment to Defendant at an address on Cypress Street in Glendale, California on April 14, 2021. On or about April 6, 2026, Plaintiff also filed on the Los Angeles Superior Court action a declaration by the person who mailed the notice of renewal to Defendant confirm that mailing. (ROA 34, Ex. F; ROA 40.)
Defendant does not dispute the Cypress Street address to which the notice of renewal was sent is her address and has been since December 2016 as she confirmed in the identify theft affidavit he presented to the Glendale Police Department and attached to her opposition. Instead, Defendant simply offers her own declaration denying receipt of the notice of and application for renewal of judgment. As stated, Plaintiff has offered a proof of service