LVNV FUNDING LLC vs MICHAEL JOHNSON

party from a judgment taken against the party through "the party's mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect." Here, Defendant attended trial in December 2025 but a Korean interpreter was not available and thus, although Defendant knew the date of the continued trial date, Defendant may not have understood that Plaintiff's RFA Motion had already been granted and that judgment could be entered via another motion prior to the trial date.

On January 5, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which was scheduled for hearing in less than 45 days. Defendant failed to oppose Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and as a result, Judgment was entered against him. Defendant mistakenly thought that nothing could happen until the trial date in April 2026. Defendant's failure to respond to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and failure to appear at the hearing where judgment was entered was a result of his "mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect."

The Court finds that Defendant was diligent in seeking relief from the Judgment when he learned that Judgment had been entered against him. The law favors judgments on the merits. Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 981. Thus, on a motion for relief from default, "doubts must be resolved in favor of relief, with an order denying relief scrutinized [on appeal] more carefully than an order granting it." LaSalle v. Vogel (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 127, 134.

Defendant has submitted a proposed Answer with his Motion. The Court will deem that Answer filed as of today's date. The Court sets trial in this action on December 10, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department Y of the Norwalk Courthouse. Clerk to give notice.

LLC vs MICHAEL JOHNSON Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and considered Defendant Michael Daniel Johnson's ("Defendant") Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default and Default Judgment ("Motion") filed on June 22, 2026 and the supporting declarations. No Opposition has been filed by Plaintiff LVNV Funding LLC ("Plaintiff"). The Court has also reviewed all relevant court records.

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed its Complaint against "Michael Johnson" on January 6, 2025. Request for Entry of Default was entered by the Clerk on March 25, 2025 and Default Judgment was entered by the Court on April 15, 2025. A Writ of Execution was issued on August 20, 2025.

In his Motion, Defendant argues that the judgment is void for lack of personal jurisdiction because Defendant was never properly served with the Summons and Complaint and did not reside at the address where the service was allegedly made. Defendant also argues that he does not match the physical description of the person served. Defendant also argues that he is not the judgment debtor in this case; has never done business with the original creditor, Cross River Bank; and was a victim of identity theft. He states in his declaration that he filed a police report in May 2023 after he received a notification from Experian about potential fraud associated with his credit.

The Court notes that Proof of Service of Summons by a registered process server by personal service was filed with the Court on January 21, 2025 creating a presumption of service under Evidence Code section 647. The Proof of Service of Summons indicates personal service on "Michael Johnson" at "1780 E 109th Pl., Los Angeles, CA 90059-1214. It describes the individual served as "a black-haired Hispanic male contact 35-45 years of age, 5'6"-5'8" tall and weighing 180-200 lbs."

Defendant's declaration, which was signed under penalty of perjury, states that he has no connection to the address where the Summons and Complaint were served (1780 E 109 th Pl.). Defendant also stated, under penalty of perjury, that he was never personally served with the Summons and Complaint in this action or personally served with any of the default notices. He also confirms in his declaration that he does not match the physical description of the person served by the process server. Defendant declares that he is 25 years old; weighs approximately 170 pounds; and is Caucasian, not Hispanic.

Defendant also states that he did not have actual notice of this lawsuit until his wages were garnished on or about December 24, 2025. He learned of the default judgment entered against him on or about April 3, 2026 when he contested the wage garnishment in Court.

Here, the Court finds that Defendant has rebutted the presumption of service. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 473(d), the Court may set aside any void judgment or order. A motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 473(d) can be brought at any time after judgment. In California Capital Insurance Company v. Hoehn (2024) 17 Cal.5th 207, the California Supreme Court ruled that a motion to vacate a void judgment due to improper service of process under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 473(d) is not subject to an arbitrary two-year time limit.

The Court also finds that Defendant had no actual notice. "Actual notice," within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 473.5, means genuine knowledge by the defendant, and has been strictly construed. Relief under the statute is liberally granted to defendants so that cases may be resolved on their merits. Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 547-548. Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 128 also grants jurisdiction to the Court to take appropriate action in the interests of justice.

The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion and vacates and sets aside the Clerk's Entry of Default on March 25, 2025 and Default Judgment on April 15, 2025. The Court also vacates and sets aside the Writ of Execution issued on August 20, 2025. Defendant has submitted a proposed Answer with his Motion. The Court will deem that Answer filed.

The Court further ORDERS that if any wages that have been garnished are being held by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office, such amounts are to be returned to Defendant Michael Johnson (the alleged debtor). To the extent any garnished amounts have been sent to Plaintiff (the creditor), Plaintiff should return such amounts to Michael Johnson and/or his counsel forthwith. The Court sets trial in this action on May 13, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. in Department Y of the Norwalk Courthouse. Defendant to give notice.

Case Number: 25NWLC15321 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: Y 25NWLC15321: CITIBANK, N.A. vs NEREIDA DELACRUZ Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and considered the moving papers filed by Defendant Nereida Delacruz ("Defendant"), including her supporting declaration. No opposition was filed by Plaintiff Citibank, N.A. ("Plaintiff"). The Court takes judicial notice of the Complaint filed on March 26, 2025 and the attached Cardmember Agreement. Defendant also submitted the Cardmember Agreement with her moving papers.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 provides that a court shall order arbitration if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate exists and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate. Once arbitration is compelled, the court must stay the action pending the outcome of the arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4.

The Court notes that Defendant has elected to resolve Plaintiff's claims by binding arbitration and has made this request to Plaintiff by filing this motion pursuant to the terms of the Cardmember Agreement. Defendant has also advised that she submitted this matter to arbitration with American Arbitration Association (AAA) on July 21, 2026.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.2 and 1281.4, Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. The proceedings are stayed pending arbitration with AAA. The Court advances and vacates the current trial date of August 19, 2026. The Court sets a Status Conference re Status of Arbitration on March 3, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. in Department Y. Plaintiff to give notice.

Case Number: 25NWLC35182 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: Y 25NWLC35182: CAPITAL ONE N.A. vs ARASELY CASTRO Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and considered the moving papers filed by Plaintiff Capital One, N.A. ("Plaintiff"), including the supporting declaration. The Court takes judicial notice of the Stipulation Agreement; Jurisdiction Retained Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 signed by Defendant on October 15, 2025 and filed with the Court on December 9, 2025. The Court also takes judicial notice of the Order on Settlement Agreement and