PACIFIC CREDIT v. HERNANDEZ

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complaint were allegedly served, and that he did not have notice of the judgment against him until funds were recently withdrawn from his savings account.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

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

considered defendant’s late-filed points and authorities as well as his supplemental declaration and exhibit.

Despite procedural deficiencies, defendant’s motion and declarations have provided evidence which disproves that service was ever effectuated. Therefore, the motion is granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d). The complaint is dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.210, subdivision (a): “[t]he summons and complaint shall be served upon a defendant within three years after the action is commenced against the defendant. For the purpose of this subdivision, an action is commenced at the time the complaint is filed.”

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

A. Proof of substitute service dated August 25, 2006. Denied, as the court need not take notice of the contents of its own file.

No. 24CV02263

WOODS v. PACIFIC BELL et al

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL

The motion is denied, as discussed below.

I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Woods (“Woods”) contends that a bridge on his property was significantly damaged by an AT&T van that came to perform an installation on his property. Woods hired attorney Saunders to prosecute his claim against defendants, including AT&T. (Decl. of Woods at ¶ 13.) Defendants successfully demurred to the complaint, but plaintiff was granted leave to amend. Saunders allegedly never told Woods about the demurrer or that he needed to file an amended complaint. (Decl. of Woods at ¶ 16.) Woods did not file a timely amended pleading. (Decl. of Woods at ¶ 16.) The case was then dismissed by the Court after defendants applied ex parte for a dismissal. Woods, by now self-represented, filed a Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) motion (“section 473(b) motion”) which was denied by this Court.

08/09/24 Woods through counsel filed a verified complaint against defendants because of damage allegedly caused by an AT&T van to a bridge on his property.