DOMENIK v. DMV

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 1, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES

Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.

No. 26CV00698

DOMENIK v. DMV

PETITIONER FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

The parties are ordered to appear. The Court notes there is no administrative record lodged (only exhibits to the verified complaint) and despite a notice of hearing to respondent, there is no opposition to the petition nor any reply. Parties shall advise if this matter is proceeding and the Court shall set a briefing schedule and a date for petitioner to lodge the administrative record. (Gov. Code § 11523; Elizabeth D. v. Zolin (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 347, 354.)

No. WC003394

PACIFIC CREDIT v. HERNANDEZ

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

Defendant’s motion to set aside the default judgment and renewal of judgment is granted.

Defendant Hernandez’s (“defendant”) default in this collections action was taken on December 12, 2006, and renewed nearly 10 years later. Defendant now seeks to set aside the default judgment and renewal. He asserts that the summons and complaint were improperly served via substitute service, that he did not reside at the location where the summons and complaint were allegedly served, and that he did not have notice of the judgment against him until funds were recently withdrawn from his savings account. In its discretion, the Court