SPRING OAKS CAPITAL SPV, LLC v. COTTLE

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MAY 1, 2026

8. SPRING OAKS CAPITAL SPV, LLC v. COTTLE, 22CV1622

Amended Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment

Default and default judgment were entered on September 17, 2024.

On April 8, 2026, defendant filed an amended motion to set aside default and

default judgment. Proof of service filed April 16, 2026, shows the motion was

electronically served upon plaintiff on April 8, 2026. However, this is untimely service by

one court day. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1005, subd. (b) [requiring 16 court days’ notice

before hearing], 1013, subd. (e) [adding two court days for electronic service].)

Even if service of the motion were timely made, the court would still deny the

motion on the merits.

Defendant claims the judgment is void because: (1) the court did not have subject-

matter jurisdiction;5 and (2) plaintiff failed to comply with the Fair Debt Buying Practices (Civ. Code, § 1788.50, et seq.), namely, Civil Code sections 1788.52 (requiring a debt

buyer to possess certain information before making any written statement to a debtor

in an attempt to collect a consumer debt) and 1788.60, subdivision (b) (requiring an

authenticated copy of the underlying contract to be submitted to the court).

Each superior court has general subject matter jurisdiction and, subject to limited

exceptions not applicable here, can adjudicate any and all cases before them. (See Long

v. Forty Niners Football Co., LLC (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 550, 555–556.) The court also

notes that, on February 7, 2025, it denied plaintiff’s motion to transfer venue, finding

that this court does have personal jurisdiction over defendant and that the El Dorado

Superior Court is a proper venue for this case.

Next, the requirements under Civil Code section 1788.52 relate to the first initial

written statement to a debtor in a debt buyer’s attempt to collect a consumer debt. It

5 Based on his argument, it appears defendant intended to claim that the court did not

have personal jurisdiction over defendant because the underlying incident did not occur in South Lake Tahoe, California, and defendant resides in Pollock Pines, California.

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MAY 1, 2026

does not impose any pleading requirements that would make the default judgment void

in this case.

With respect to defendant’s challenge under Civil Code section 1788.60,

subdivision (b), the court finds that in support of its request for default judgment,

plaintiff submitted a declaration with a copy of the subject-loan agreement attached

thereto as Exhibit B, thereby satisfying the requirement under Civil Code

section 1788.60, subdivision (b).

Lastly, defendant argues that plaintiff failed to comply with California Rules of Court

(“CRC”), rule 3.740, subdivision (f), which provides: “If proofs of service of the complaint

are filed or service by publication is made and defendants do not file responsive

pleadings, the plaintiff must obtain a default judgment within 360 days after the filing of

the complaint. If the plaintiff has not obtained a default judgment by that time, the

court must issue an order to show cause why reasonable monetary sanctions should not

be imposed. The order to show cause must be vacated if the plaintiff obtains a default

judgment at least 10 court days before the order to show cause hearing.”

Plaintiff filed its complaint on November 15, 2022. Therefore, under CRC 3.740,

plaintiff was required to obtain a default judgment by November 13, 2023 (360 days

after the filing of the complaint). Plaintiff did not obtain default judgment until

September 16, 2024. The court finds, however, that CRC 3.740, subdivision (f) does not

authorize the court to set aside default judgment for plaintiff’s failure to comply with

the time requirement. The rule specifically contemplates monetary sanctions, only.

Based on the above, the court denies defendant’s motion to set aside default and

default judgment.

TENTATIVE RULING # 8: DEFENDANT’S MOTION IS DENIED. NO HEARING ON THIS

MATTER WILL BE HELD (LEWIS v. SUPERIOR COURT (1999) 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247),

UNLESS A NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MAY 1, 2026

TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE

TO THE COURT AT (530) 573-3042 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS

ISSUED. NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF AN INTENT TO APPEAR MUST BE MADE BY

TELEPHONE OR IN PERSON. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SAID NOTICE MUST BE FILED PRIOR

TO OR AT THE HEARING.