Adjemian vs. Gallo

There is insufficient evidence that the judgment here was satisfied in full. “The amount required to satisfy a money judgment is the total amount of the judgment, plus costs added after judgment (including attorney fees), plus accrued interest on the judgment, less payments and any amounts no longer enforceable.” (Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc. v. Lee (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 125, 139 (citing Code of Civ. Proc. § 695.210) (emphasis added)).

“Payment on a judgment is allocated first to accrued interest on the principal amount, and then to the principal.” (Id.)

As such, under these principals, Hulsey’s payment of $27,737.77 first applied to the accrued interest due on the total judgment amount of $36,758.24, leaving a balance of $9,020.47 in principle still owed. Hulsey’s payment constitutes partial satisfaction of the judgment. “If a money judgment is partially satisfied pursuant to a writ under this title or is otherwise partially satisfied, interest ceases to accrue as to the part satisfied on the date the part is satisfied.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.030(c)). Accordingly, interest continues to accrue only on the unsatisfied portion of the award, or $9,020.47.

Hulsey cites to no authority that suggests otherwise.

The motion is, therefore, denied.

Moving party to give notice. 3

4 Adjemian vs. Gallo Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Kevork Adjemian moves to set aside the default entered against him on the Cross-Complaint filed by Cross- Complainant John Mussen. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

The proof of service attached to the motion reflects service of an ex parte application for order setting aside the default, as opposed to the instant motion to set aside the default. However, this defect in service is immaterial, and Mussen opposed the motion on the merits. (Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 697 [“It is well settled that the appearance of a party at the hearing of a motion and his or her opposition to the motion on its merits is a waiver of any defects or irregularities in the notice of motion. This rule applies even when no notice was given at all.”.].)

Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) provides in pertinent part,

“The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other 3

pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken. . . . Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney's sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.

The court shall, whenever relief is granted based on an attorney's affidavit of fault, direct the attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties.”

Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) permits a court to grant relief from a judgment, dismissal, order or other proceeding taken against a party on the grounds of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.” A court must grant relief upon a showing by an attorney declaration of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect.

A motion seeking relief under Section 473(b) must be brought within 6 months of entry of the judgment. (Civ. Proc. Code § 473(b).)

On June 15, 2026, the Court entered Adjemian’s default on the Cross- Complaint filed by John Mussen. (ROA 251.) Adjemian filed this motion on July 6, 2026. (ROA 281.) Thus, the motion is timely.

Where an “attorney affidavit of fault” is filed, there is no requirement that the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, etc. be excusable. Relief must be granted even where the default resulted from inexcusable neglect by defendant's attorney. (Standard Microsystems Corp. v. Winbond Electronics Corp. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 868, 897.)

Adjemian’s counsel has made a showing of inadvertence. Adjemian’s counsel neglected to calendar the response deadline when he received the Cross-Complaint from Mussen. (Quinn Dec., ¶ 1.)

The motion is timely and Adjemian has established a proper ground for setting aside the default. Thus, the motion should be granted.

In granting relief based on an “attorney affidavit of fault,” the court must “direct the attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs” to the opposing counsel or parties. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b).) Mussen is selfrepresented and contends that he has spent approximately 20 hours in “prepar[ing] default-related papers, review[ing] and oppos[ing] the ex parte application, review[ing] the present motion and proposed answer,

research[ing] the applicable law, and prepar[ing] this opposition.” (Mussen Dec., ¶ 7.) Mussen requests the maximum penalty of $1,000.

Mussen is a self-represented litigant. The only fees or costs Mussen may have incurred in connection with this motion was perhaps a fee for electronic filing, though Mussen does not provide any evidence of such a fee. Sanctions do not appear warranted at this juncture. Thus, the Court will not order Adjemian’s counsel to pay any sanctions.

Adjemian shall file the Answer to the Cross-Complaint attached to the motion within 7 days of this ruling.

Adjemian shall give notice of this ruling. 5 Blood vs. Huntington Beach Hospital’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Huntington Beach Interrogatories (Set One) No. 17.1 is GRANTED. Hospital Plaintiff Heather Jeane Blood is ordered to serve a further, verified, code- compliant response, without objections, to Form Interrogatory no. 17.1, as it relates to Requests for Admission nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13-41, 44, 46, and 47-73, within 20 days of the notice of ruling.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

A response to interrogatories is due within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (a), 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).) A party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)

Each answer must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) “Where the question is specific and explicit, an answer which supplies only a portion of the information sought is wholly insufficient. Likewise, a party may not provide deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions. [Citation.]” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.)

Upon receipt of the responses, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if it deems an answer to be evasive or incomplete, or an objection to be without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration and a separate statement, and notice of the motion generally must be given within 45 days of the service of the verified response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subds. (b)(1), (c); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(2).) 5