On 06/05/2017 NORWALK MANOR HOME OWNERS filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against GUZMAN, VICTOR MANUEL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.
****7119
06/05/2017
Disposed - Other Disposed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
NORWALK MANOR HOME OWNERS
GUZMAN VICTOR MANUEL
GUZMAN NINFA
LAW OFF OF PAMELA ABBOTT MOORE
7/28/2017: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment
8/4/2017: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment
8/25/2017: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment
10/16/2017: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment
11/29/2017: Declaration (name extension) - 585
11/29/2017: Judgment
11/29/2017: Request for Dismissal
11/29/2017: Other - (name extension) - memorandum of points and authorities
11/29/2017: Declaration (name extension) - 1033
11/29/2017: Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment
11/29/2017: Declaration (name extension) - in lieu of personal testimony
10/12/2018: Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest - Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest
11/27/2018: Writ of Execution - Writ of Execution
6/6/2019: Application for Order of Sale of Dwelling - Application for Order of Sale of Dwelling
6/6/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Nicholas J. Wolfsen in Support of Plaintiff's Application For Issuance For Order of Sale of Dwelling
6/6/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Danny Lemansky in Support of Plaintiff's Application For Issuance For Order of Sale of Dwelling
DocketApplication for Order of Sale of Dwelling; Filed by: NORWALK MANOR HOME OWNERS (Plaintiff)
DocketDeclaration of Nicholas J. Wolfsen in Support of Plaintiff's Application For Issuance For Order of Sale of Dwelling; Filed by: NORWALK MANOR HOME OWNERS (Plaintiff)
DocketDeclaration of Danny Lemansky in Support of Plaintiff's Application For Issuance For Order of Sale of Dwelling; Filed by: NORWALK MANOR HOME OWNERS (Plaintiff)
DocketWrit of Execution; Issued by: NORWALK MANOR HOME OWNERS (Plaintiff); As to: VICTOR MANUEL GUZMAN (Defendant)
DocketUpdated -- NINFA GUZMAN (Defendant): Middle Name: blank
DocketMemorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest; Filed by: NORWALK MANOR HOME OWNERS (Plaintiff); As to: VICTOR MANUEL GUZMAN (Defendant); NINFA GUZMAN (Defendant); Costs: 6,038.74; Interest: 495.20; Credits: 413.77; Service Date: 10/09/18
DocketWrit of Execution (LOS ANGELES); Issued by: Clerk; County: LOS ANGELES
DocketAbstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Issued by: Clerk
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/05/2018 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 12/16/2017
DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 06/05/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 12/16/2017
DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: NORWALK MANOR HOME OWNERS (Plaintiff); As to: VICTOR MANUEL GUZMAN (Defendant)
Docket; Default not entered as to VICTOR MANUEL GUZMAN; On the Complaint filed by NORWALK MANOR HOME OWNERS on 06/05/2017
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILED
DocketDECLARATION OF MAILING FILED.
DocketDECLARATION OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE FILED.
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILED
DocketNON-JURY TRIAL SET FOR 12/05/18, 08:30 AM, DEPT 77
DocketCOMPLAINT FILED - OTHER CONTRACTUAL DISPUTE Filing Fee: 225.00
DocketOSC SET 06/05/20, 08:30 AM, DEPT. 77 PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER
DocketSUMMONS FILED
Case Number: 17K07119 Hearing Date: November 13, 2019 Dept: 94
Norwalk Manor Home Owners v. Victor Manuel Guzman and Ninfa Guzman
APPLICATION FOR ORDER OF SALE OF DWELLING
(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 740.740-704.850.)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff’s Application for Order of Sale of Dwelling is DENIED without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy CCP §§ 704.770(a) and (b)(2).
ANALYSIS:
I. Background
Plaintiff Norwalk Manor Home Owners Association (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendants Victor Manuel Guzman and Ninfa Guzman (“Defendants”) on June 5, 2017. On November 29, 2017 a default judgment was entered against Defendants. Plaintiff filed the instant Application for Order of Sale of Dwelling (the “Application”) on June 6, 2019. On September 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed a proposed Order to Show Cause Why Order of Sale of Dwelling Should Not Be Made, and the court accordingly set an Order to Show Cause Why Sale of Dwelling Should Not Be Made for November 13, 2019 at 10:30 am in Department 94.
II. Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section 704.770 provides:
(a) Upon the filing of the application by the judgment creditor, the court shall set a time and place for hearing and order the judgment debtor to show cause why an order for sale should not be made in accordance with the application. The time set for hearing shall be not later than 45 days after the application is filed or such later time as the court orders upon a showing of good cause.
(b) Not later than 30 days before the time set for hearing, the judgment creditor shall do both of the following:
(1) Serve on the judgment debtor a copy of the order to show cause, a copy of the application of the judgment creditor, and a copy of the notice of the hearing in the form prescribed by the Judicial Council. Service shall be made personally or by mail.
(2) Personally serve a copy of each document listed in paragraph (1) on an occupant of the dwelling or, if there is no occupant present at the time service is attempted, post a copy of each document in a conspicuous place at the dwelling.
III. Analysis
Here, the requirements from section 704.770 are (1) the time of hearing is proper, (2) service of the order to show cause, the application, and notice of the hearing personally or by mail on the defendant, and (3) service of the same documents personally or by posting at the subject dwelling.
The time set for the hearing is more than 45 days after the application was filed—it is 160 days later. This fails to comply with section 704.770(a) because the time set for hearing shall be not later than 45 days after the application is filed. There is no good cause apparent to the court, and none offered by Plaintiff, addressing why Plaintiff filed the proposed OSC order more than 3 months after the application was filed. Thus, section 704.770(a) is not satisfied.
On 11/8/19, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing a copy of the order to show cause, a copy of the application of the judgment creditor, and a copy of the notice of the hearing was served by mail on October 1, 2019 on Defendants. Thus, service of the requisite documents was performed by mail at least 30 days before the hearing. Thus, section 704.770(b)(1) is sufficiently satisfied.
Also on 11/8/19, Plaintiff filed a proof of service by posting a copy of each document listed in section 704.770(b)(1) in a conspicuous place at the subject dwelling. However, the proof of service does not state personal service was attempted or that the occupants of the dwelling were not present at the time of service. Section 704.770(b)(2) indicates personal service should be attempted before posting. In the context of service of summons, the court liberally constructs service requirements and uphold service as valid when the requirements are substantially met. (See Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 408-411 [discussing “liberal construction” of service process law].) The court sees no reason not to applies the principles governing service of summons to service under section 704.770. Nevertheless, the process server’s failure to indicate that personal service was attempted before posting forecloses a finding of substantial compliance with section 704.770(b)(2). Personal service must have been attempted first, and there is no indication that it was attempted. An analogy would be determining substituted service was valid without a declaration of due diligence showing attempts at personal service. Thus, the court finds the service did not substantially comply with the requirements of section 704.770(b)(2). Therefore, this requirement is not satisfied.
IV. Conclusion & Order
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Application for Order of Sale of Dwelling is DENIED without prejudice.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.