CAPITAL ONE N.A. vs ARASELY CASTRO

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.

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 Stipulation for Judgment entered by the Court on January 6, 2026.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has advised that Defendant has made payments totaling $1,200.00, leaving an outstanding amount of $3,130.00 due and owing. Based on the Stipulation signed by the parties and the moving papers submitted by Plaintiff, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. The Order Dismissing this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is set aside. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff Capital One, N.A. and against Defendant Arasely Castro for the principal sum of $3,130.00 plus court costs of $583.61, for a total judgment of $3,713.61. The Proposed Judgment will be signed by the Court. Plaintiff to give notice.

Case Number: 25NWLC53897 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: Y 25NWLC53897: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs MARIA E LEYVA Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and considered all moving documents filed by Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Plaintiff") in support of its motion for summary judgment, including the separate statement and supporting evidence. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was filed on May 18, 2026 and set for hearing on August 18, 2026. No opposition has been filed by Defendant Maria E. Leyva ("Defendant").

The Court finds that Plaintiff has met the initial burden of showing that there are no defenses to its cause of action for breach of contract by proving each element of the cause of action entitling Plaintiff to summary judgment. Plaintiff has shown, through admissible evidence, that Defendant was issued the subject credit card by Plaintiff; Defendant was the only person authorized to make charges on the account; Defendant received monthly statements for the account; and there is no record of any unresolved disputes on the account. (Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("UMF") Nos. 1-9.) The evidence further shows Defendant's last payment on the account was on April 18, 2024 in the amount of $200.00, and Defendant owes Plaintiff an unpaid balance of $20,897.32 on the credit account. (Id., UMF Nos. 10-12.)

The burden having shifted to Defendant, the Court finds Defendant has failed to set forth specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to any of the elements of the causes of action for breach of contract or that there is any defense thereto required by Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(p)(1). The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to its cause of action for breach of contract. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and against Defendant Maria E.

Leyva in the principal sum of $20,897.32, plus reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The Proposed Order will be signed by the Court. Plaintiff must submit a Memorandum of Costs and a declaration in support of reasonable attorney's fees as well as a Proposed Judgment for the Court's review and signature. Plaintiff to give notice.

Case Number: 25NWLC58966 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: Y 25NWLC58966: MAERSK LOGISTICS AND SERVICES USA, INC. vs JIANGHAI AMERICA INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and considered Plaintiff Maersk Logistics Services USA, Inc.'s ("Plaintiff") Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and the unsigned attorney declaration filed on May 14, 2026. Plaintiff argues that it mistakenly filed a dismissal without prejudice to the entire action rather than a dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6. Plaintiff requests that the Court set aside the dismissal.

The motion was initially set for hearing on May 4, 2026. The Court found that Plaintiff failed to submit an agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6 and continued the hearing on the motion to July 9, 2026. On July 9, 2026, the Court held a second hearing on the motion and requested that Plaintiff submit an amended motion based on Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 473.5. Plaintiff has failed to file an amended motion.