DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25NWLC19105·la·Civil·Civil
Hearing todayGRANTED

CKS PRIME INVESTMENTS LLC vs ANGEL L WILLIAMS

Motion for Order Vacating Judgment

Hearing date
Sep 3, 2026
Department
Y
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party
Next hearing
Nov 2, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCKS Prime Investments, LLC
DefendantAngel L Williams

Ruling

(Norwalk Courthouse: Dept. Y) September 3, 2026 DEPARTMENT Y LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

INVESTMENTS LLC vs ANGEL L WILLIAMS Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and considered the moving papers filed by Defendant Angel Williams ("Defendant"), and her supporting declaration, the opposing papers filed by Plaintiff CKS Prime Investments, LLC ("Plaintiff"), and the reply papers filed by Defendant.

In her Motion, Defendant requests to vacate the judgment entered by the Court on June 17, 2026. Defendant argues that due to a calendaring error Defendant did not appear for trial. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff failed to provide Notice of Trial to Defendant, which was ordered by the Court on April 21, 2026.

The Court takes judicial notice of its Minute Order on April 21, 2026 in which Plaintiff was ordered to give notice of the trial date. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 473(b), the Court has authority to relieve, on such terms as are just, a party or party's legal representative from a judgment taken against the party because of mistake, inadvertence, surprise and/or excusable neglect.

Here, Defendant has submitted a declaration under penalty of perjury stating that her failure to appear for trial was due to a calendaring error and due to Plaintiff's failure to provide her with notice of the continued date of trial. The Court finds that Plaintiff's failure to appear for trial was due to "mistake, inadvertence, surprise and/or excusable neglect."

The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Order Vacating Judgment. The Court resets this case for a non-jury trial on November 2, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department Y. Plaintiff to give notice. Case Number: 25NWLC32219 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Dept: Y

25NWLC32219: CAPITAL ONE N.A. vs CHRISTIAN PALOMARES Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Capital One, N.A.'s ("Plaintiff") Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Enter Judgment Under Terms of Stipulated Settlement ("Motion") was initially set for hearing on July 31, 2026. The Court continued the hearing to September 3, 2026 so that proper notice of the Motion could be given to Defendant and to allow a substantive opposition to be filed by Defendant, if necessary. No substantive opposition has been filed by Defendant.

The Court has read and considered the moving papers filed by Plaintiff. The Court takes judicial notice of the Stipulation Agreement; Jurisdiction Retained Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 signed by Defendant on April 6, 2026 and filed with the Court on May 1, 2026. The Court also takes judicial notice of the Order on Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Judgment entered by the Court on May 20, 2026.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has advised that Defendant has made payments totaling $730.00, leaving an outstanding amount of $21,085.80 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 Christian Palomares for the principal sum of $21,085.80 plus court costs of $523.61, for a total judgment of $21,609.41. The Proposed Judgment will be signed by the Court. Plaintiff to give notice. Case Number: 25NWLC51292 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Dept: Y

25NWLC51292: SYNCHRONY BANK vs JENERIC PEREZ Tentative Ruling: The Court has read and reviewed the moving papers filed by Plaintiff Synchrony Bank ("Plaintiff") in support of its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, including the meet and confer letter dated December 31, 2025, as well as the Complaint and Answer. No opposition has been filed by Defendant Jeneric Perez("Defendant").

The Court finds that Defendant, in the Answer filed on October 22, 2025, checked the box stating that Defendant admits that all of the statements of the complaint are true and did not indicate any specific statement

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share