San Tan Heights Homeowners Ass’n vs. Debbie Gavarrete

22CV-01296 San Tan Heights Homeowners Ass’n vs. Debbie Gavarrete

Motion for Post Judgment Attorneys’ Fees & Costs

Appearance required. Appear to address the issue of valid proof of service.

The Court is uncertain from the conflicting proofs of service whether Defendant is a resident of Arizona or California. If Defendant resides in Ajo, Arizona, there appears to be timely and effective proof of service of the notice of motion and motion and the Court is inclined to grant the unopposed motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 685.080. If, however, Defendant is a resident of Gustine, California, the Court is inclined to DROP the motion from calendar due to insufficient notice. The Court notes that on July 29, 2026, and August 5, 2026, Plaintiff filed proofs of service indicating service of the moving papers by U.S. mail on June 9, 2026, from Mesa, Arizona to an address for Defendant in Ajo, Arizona. The Court is uncertain whether the address

in Ajo, Arizona is a valid current address for Defendant because on August 12, 2026, Plaintiff filed a different proof of service indicating service of the moving papers by mail from Mesa, Arizona to an address for Defendant in Gustine, California. A noticed motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 685.080 must be served in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1005(a)(13), Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1300(a)). In this case, if Defendant currently resides in Gustine, the notice of motion and motion served by mail from a location outside California on August 12, 2026, were served less than the minimum required 16 court days plus ten calendar days when mailed from a place outside the State of California (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1005(b)).