LVNV Funding LLC vs Gloria Maceda

pending briefing of the Supersedeas Petition. (Supp. Brief, p. 2, ll. 13-15 & RJN Exh. B.)

PoloDonkey opposed the Supersedeas Petition and Defendants filed a reply brief in support. (Brief, p. 2, ll. 15-17 & RJN Exhs. C, D.)

On May 13, 2026, the appellate Court entered an Order for Writ of Supersedeas, that vacated the March 26, 2026 temporary stay, staying enforcement the judgment's mandatory injunctions, and allowing the prohibitory injunctions to remain in full force and effect while the appeal is pending. (Brief, p. 2, l. 24 - p. 3, l. 1 & RJN Exh. E.)

On May 28, 2026, in the appellate case, Defendants filed a Petition for Rehearing of the Supersedeas Petition, arguing that the appellate Court overlooked certain provisions of the judgment that should be stayed. (Brief, p. 3, ll. 2-4 & RJN Exh. F.)

On June 11, 2026, the appellate Court denied Defendants' Petition for Rehearing. (Brief, p. 3, l l. 9-10 & RJN Exh. J.)

As the appellate Court has already ruled on the stay of enforcement, and the requests are the same as those before this Court, the matter will be taken off-calendar as moot.

Tentative Ruling: LVNV Funding LLC vs Gloria Maceda Tentative Ruling: LVNV Funding LLC vs Gloria Maceda Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 07/08/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Vacate Tentative Ruling Attorney for Plaintiff: Donald Sherrill Defendant is self-represented.

On October 30, 2025, Plaintiff LVNV Funding LLC filed a motion to vacate dismissal and enter judgment under terms of a stipulated settlement [balance at charge--off was $2,970.88.]

No opposition or other response was filed, and the Court granted the motion on January 14, 2026, as follows: "For all reasons discussed herein, the motion to vacate dismissal and enter judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is granted in the amount of $1,980.00. Any costs to be recovered shall be pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700. Plaintiff shall prepare and file a new order and new judgment that omits the claimed Court costs."

No order and new judgment were submitted pursuant to the Court's order of January 14, 2026.

Instead, inexplicably, on April 17, 2026, Plaintiff filed this motion seeking the same relief as the October 30, 2025, motion (except, this motion seeks a different sum for the judgment than is supported by the accompanying declaration, apparently because of a typo in the text of the motion).

Because the Court has already granted the motion to vacate the dismissal and to enter judgment, the motion is superfluous and constitutes an improper motion for reconsideration. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1008, subd. (a).)

The motion is denied on those grounds. (See id., subd. (e).)

Nevertheless, the proposed order and judgment submitted with the April 17, 2026, motion is sufficient to comply with the Court's order of January 14, 2026.

The Court will sign the new proposed order and enter the new proposed judgment based upon the Court's disposition in its order of January 14, 2026.

Tentative Ruling: Maria Gonzalez, as guardian ad litem for Jacob Garcia v. Antonio Haro and Diana Haro Tentative Ruling: Maria Gonzalez, as guardian ad litem for Jacob Garcia v. Antonio Haro and Diana Haro