Reynolds v. County of Orange

1011(b), and 1014, and C.R.C. 2.253(b)(2), (3).) The hearing on the Motion is therefore CONTINUED to October 26, 2026, at 2:00 p.m.

The case management conference and order to show cause re monetary/terminating sanctions are also CONTINUED to October 26, 2026, at 2:00 p.m.

Counsel for Maksoud is to promptly prepare an Amended Notice for the continued hearing date for this Motion and the case management conference, and properly serve the Motion itself, along with that Amended Notice, on all parties who have appeared in the action. That Amended Notice, and proofs of service reflecting proper service on all parties, are to be filed and served within 10 days.

Counsel for Maksoud is to give notice of this ruling. 6 Reynolds v. Before the Court is a motion to approve settlement agreement and County of distribution of settlement payment filed by defendant City of Buena Orange Park (City). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

The statutes the City relies on do not authorize the relief requested in the City’s motion. By its own language, Code of Civil Procedure section 708.440 applies to an application by the judgment debtor – in this case, plaintiff Marion Reynolds (Plaintiff). The City is not the judgment debtor in this action and thus the Court cannot approve the settlement pursuant to the City’s motion.

Code of Civil Procedure section 708.470 also does not authorize the relief requested by the City, as this matter involves a settlement, not a judgment. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 708.470(a); Casa Eva I Homeowners Assn. v. Ani Constr. & Tile, Inc. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 771, 781 [finding court lacked jurisdiction to act under § 708.470(a) where there was no “judgment” (case settled)].)

“[T]hese judgment lien statutes are subject to strict construction.” [Citation.] “[W]here a statute requires a court to exercise its jurisdiction in a particular manner, follow a particular procedure, or be subject to certain limitations, an act beyond those limits is in excess of its jurisdiction and void.” [Citation.]” (Casa Eva I Homeowners Assn. v. Ani Constr. & Tile, Inc., supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at 780-781.)

Based on the above, the motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for approval of the settlement is not properly before the Court as it was only raised in Plaintiff’s (very late) opposition. Plaintiff will need to file his own motion pursuant to section 708.440 to obtain approval of the subject settlement. Any motion seeking approval of the settlement must address the County of Orange’s lien in this matter.

Counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice. 7 Arck Services, The motion to compel arbitration filed by defendants Sepehr Bekam; LLC v. Bekam Low Income Property, LLC; SPS Platinum Properties, LLC; Modest