Motion to Vacate Judgment
Line 7
Case Name: First Resolution Investment Corp. v. Richard J. Torres Case No.: 2008-1-CV-131533 Assignee River Heights Capital LLC (“Assignee”) moves under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(b) to vacate the Judgment entered on April 14, 2009 and the Renewal of Judgment filed on March 26, 2019 against Defendant Richard J. Torres (“Defendant”) and to dismiss the case with prejudice on the grounds that Defendant was a victim of identity theft and fraud. Notice of Motion (the “Motion”) at 1:21-27 (filed: Jan. 15, 2026).
The Motion came on for hearing on August 7, 2026, at 9:00 AM in Department 16. The Court has considered the moving papers, including the Declaration of Robert J. Colclough, III in Support of the Motion (“Colclough Decl.”) and its supporting evidentiary exhibit, as well as the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Motion. No Opposition has been filed by any party. After reviewing all the papers and the record, and giving counsel for all parties the full and fair opportunity to be heard, the Court finds and rules as follows.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 14, 2009, Judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff First Resolution Investment Corp. against Defendant Richard J. Torres, an individual, in the amount of $2,370.98. Colclough Decl. at ¶ 3; Abstract of Judgment. On March 26, 2019, the Judgment was renewed in the amount of $4,744.03. Colclough Decl. at ¶ 3; Abstract of Judgment.
By a filing in this action on April 22, 2025, Assignee River Heights Capital LLC was assigned all title, right, and interest in the judgment by the original Judgment creditor First Resolution Investment Corp. Assignment of Judgment (filed: April 22, 2025).
Now River Heights Capital LLC, as Assignee, moves under California Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) to vacate the Judgment entered on April 14, 2009, and the Renewal of Judgment filed on March 26, 2019, and to dismiss the case with prejudice on the grounds that Defendant was a victim of identity theft and fraud. Motion at 1:20-27; Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Vacate J. at 3:19-23.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On or about January 13, 2026, counsel for Assignee became aware that Defendant Richard J. Torres was a victim of identity theft and fraud. Colclough Decl. at ¶ 4. Counsel for Assignee received certified mail from Consumer Law Center, Inc., dated October 11, 2017, advising that the law firm represents Defendant Richard Jonathan Torres in this matter. Id. ¶ 5 & Ex. 1 thereto. The letter stated that the debt is not the Defendant Torres’s debt and that he is a victim of identity theft. Id. The letter explained that an unknown person or persons opened the Washington Mutual Bank credit account underlying this lawsuit using Mr. Torres’s personal information without his knowledge or consent. Id. The letter enclosed a San Jose Police Report, Sunnyvale Police Report, and a completed and notarized Federal Trade Commission Identity Theft Affidavit. Id.
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?”
LEGAL STANDARD
California Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) provides that "[t]he court may, upon any terms that may be just, relieve a party or his legal representative from a judgment, dismissal or order or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Vacate J. at 4:2-3. Under section 473(b), this Court has the authority and discretion to vacate the Judgment entered on April 14, 2009, and the Renewal of Judgment filed on March 26, 2019, and to dismiss this case with prejudice. Id. at 4:7-14.
ANALYSIS OF THE MOTION
In the broad exercise of its discretion, the Court finds the Motion to be well grounded in law, well supported in fact and evidence by the Supporting Declaration of Robert J. Colclough, III, and its Exhibits, and reasonable in all respects. The evidence presented demonstrates that Defendant was a victim of identity theft and that the Judgment was entered based on a debt arising from a credit account opened by an unknown person using Defendant's personal information without his knowledge or consent. Colclough Decl. at ¶ 5. The Assignee, as the current holder of the Judgment, quite reasonably seeks this relief from the Judgment after recognizing this identity theft.
Given the uncontroverted evidence that Defendant was a victim of identity theft, and in the interests of justice, the Court finds that relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) is warranted.
Moreover, no party has opposed the Motion, which the Court views as all parties conceding the Motion in its entirety. D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4.; California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial ¶ 9:105.10, Ch. 9 at pp. 94-95 (failure to file opposition papers to motion is treated “as an admission that the motion is meritorious”) (Weil & Brown, The Rutter Group, 2025 Ed.); see also Rule of Court 8.54(c): “A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.” CRC Rule 8.54(c).
CONCLUSION & ORDER
This Motion to Vacate the Judgment, Renewal of Judgment and Dismiss the Case with Prejudice is GRANTED in its entirety.
Specifically, the Court ORDERS that:
1. The Judgment entered on April 14, 2009, in favor of First Resolution Investment Corp. against Richard J. Torres, an individual, is VACATED;
2. The Renewal of Judgment filed on March 26, 2019, is VACATED; and
3. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
Date: August 7, 2026 Hon. Vincent I. Parrett Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara
46