Grand Promenade LLP v. Nunez
Motion to Compel Satisfaction of Judgment
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
CASE NO.: 22STCV24310 MOTION TO COMPEL SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT MOVING PARTY/PARTIES: Defendant Elmer Nunez RESPONDING PARTY/PARTIES: Plaintiff Grand Promenade LLP PROOF OF SERVICE: · The Court continued the matter to this date in its order of June 23, 2026. CASE HISTORY: · July 28, 2022: Complaint filed. · October 12, 2022: Case dismissed for failure to proceed with trial. · November 4, 2022, Dismissal vacated. · January 17, 2023: Trial completed. · February 8, 2023: Judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Defendant Elmer Youvani Nunez ("Defendant") moves to compel Plaintiff Grand Promenade LLP ("Plaintiff") to enter satisfaction of judgment. In its order of May 11, 2026, the Court continued the hearing to June 23, 2026 because Defendant failed to file proof of service of this motion on Plaintiff, as required. In its order of June 23, 2026, the Court continued the matter to this date. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant's motion to compel satisfaction of judgment is GRANTED.
Moving
party to give notice. DISCUSSION: In its order of June 23, 2026, the Court continued the matter to this date for Plaintiff to provide an accounting of what Defendant paid to Plaintiff to satisfy the judgment. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file this briefing by September 2, 2026. (June 23, 2026 Minute Order.) Plaintiff failed to do so. As such, Plaintiff fails to show that any amount remains outstanding on the judgment, despite the opportunity to do so. Accordingly, the motion to compel satisfaction of judgment is GRANTED.
Moving party to give notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 16, 2026 ___________________________________ Rolf M. Treu Judge of the Superior Court Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at SMCDept415@lacourt.ca.gov by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.
Judge Rolf M. Treu, Department 415 HEARING DATE: September 16 2026 TRIAL DATE: April 6, 2027 CASE: Security National Insurance Company v. Modern Floor Specialists Inc., et al.
Cited authorities
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?”