CAPITAL ONE N.A. VS. AUDREY B LUJAN

May 12, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 14 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

2:00 PM LINE 6 24-CLJ-05795 CAPITAL ONE N.A. VS. AUDREY B LUJAN

CAPITAL ONE N.A. AUDREY B LUJAN ALEXANDER BALZER CARR

MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL AND ENTER JUDGMENT UNDER TERMS OF STIPULATED SETTLEMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff Capital One, N.A.’s unopposed “Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Under Terms of Stipulated Settlement is DENIED without prejudice.

The clerk’s office changed the hearing date from the date on the papers, May 4, 2026, to May 12, 2026. The court file shows a proof of service filed February 2, 2026 of the motion showing service of the motion on defendant on February 2, 2026, but according to the court records, the clerk did not actually file the motion until February 6, 2026 at 1:45 p.m. Thus, based upon the change of hearing date by the clerk, plaintiff could not have provided on February 2, 2026 proper notice of the May 12, 2026 hearing to defendant.

There is no amended proof of service in the court file. Therefore, defendant did not receive proper notice of the hearing date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(b)(1)) and, therefore, the court must deny the motion because it lacks jurisdiction to hear it. (Diaz v. Professional Community Management, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1204–1205 [“court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a motion that has not been properly noticed for hearing on the date in question.”].)

The court would generally allow plaintiff to show that proper notice of the hearing was provided. However, plaintiff’s motion explicitly states that the motion is submitted without an appearance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1304