Claim of Mavromatis

City of Long Beach (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 540, 556.) Thus, it would appear Greisman does not apply to the instant Settlement and instead the holding in Wackeen and Williams applies.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED as to Priscilla Jaurigue and DENIED as to John F. Jaurigue. Counsel for Plaintiff is to submit a proposed order/judgment in accordance with this ruling. Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

8. Claim of Mavromatis 2026-01563873 Before the court is the motion of petitioner People of the State of California (Petitioner) for default and default judgment of forfeiture pertaining to $35,532.00 in United States Currency seized on December 29, 2025, by the Irvine Police Department from the residence of real partyin-interest Nicholas Mavromatis (Mavromatis). As more fully set forth below, the motion is GRANTED.

The petition in this case was brought pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11470, et. seq. and was timely filed within one year of seizure. (Health & Safety Code, § 11488.4(a).) Health and Safety Code section 11488.5, subdivision (a) grants any claimant to the property subject to forfeiture 30 days from the last publication of notice of the forfeiture proceedings or 30 days after receipt of actual notice to file a verified claim for the property.

Section 11488.5, subdivision (b)(1), provides, “If at the end of the time set forth in subdivision (a) there is no claim on file, the court, upon motion, shall declare the property seized or subject to forfeiture pursuant to subdivisions (a) to (g), inclusive, of Section 11470 forfeited to the state. In moving for a default judgment pursuant to this subdivision, the state or local governmental entity shall be required to establish a prima facie case in support of its petition for forfeiture. There is no requirement for forfeiture thereof that a criminal conviction be obtained in an underlying or related criminal offense.”

“Health and Safety Code section 11488.4 provides for three types of notice of forfeiture proceedings. [Citation.] First, a person from whom property is seized and who is named in a receipt for the seized property is entitled to service of process of the petition of forfeiture. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11488.4, subd. (c).) Second, notice of the seizure or of an intended forfeiture proceeding along with instructions for filing a claim is ‘to be served by personal delivery or by registered mail upon any person who has an interest in the seized property or property subject to forfeiture other than persons designated in a receipt issued for the property seized.’ (Id., § 11488.4, subd. (c).)

Finally, notice of a forfeiture action must be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the county of seizure. (Id., § 11488.4, subd. (e).)” (People v. Mendocino County Assessor’s Parcel No. 056- 500-09 (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 120, 125.)

Here, Petitioner has provided evidence showing notice of these proceedings was duly given. Mavromatis is the only person identified in the receipt for the seized property and Petitioner provided evidence showing he was personally served with the petition of forfeiture and with notice of the seizure and intended forfeiture proceeding along with instructions for filing a claim. Mavromatis’ wife and brother both signed a “Disclaimer of Ownership and Waiver of Notice” pertaining to the seized property. Petitioner also provided proof showing notice of the forfeiture action was given by publication as required by Health & Safety Code section 11488.4, subdivision (e). Mavromatis was also served with a copy of this motion by mail. No claim has been filed by any party asserting any interest in the seized property.

Based on the uncontroverted declaration of Irvine Police Department Detective Ryan Smith #624, the court finds Petitioner has established a prima facie case in support of its petition for forfeiture, and therefore Petitioner is entitled to a default judgment of forfeiture. Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED. The court will sign the proposed judgment submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner’s counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

9. Saddozai v. American Contractors Indemnity Company 2015-00816859 CONTINUED to September 17, 2026, as stated in the September 4, 2026 Minute Order.

10. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan vs. Sharp Before the court is the continued hearing on the following three motions to seal: (1) motion to seal portions of the opposition brief and supporting documents respondents Sharp Memorial Hospital, Sharp Coronado Hospital & Healthcare Center, Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center, and Grossmont Hospital Corporation dba Sharp Grossmont