This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/13/2019 at 15:02:17 (UTC).

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC VS BRUCE, BRITNEY L

Case Summary

On 05/15/2012 PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against BRUCE, BRITNEY L. 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.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7530

  • Filing Date:

    05/15/2012

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC

Defendant

BRUCE BRITNEY L

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

LEGAL RECOVERY LAW OFFICES INC

Defendant Attorney

BRUCE, BRITNEY

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/22/2013
  • NOTICE OF RULING FILED NOTICE OF RULING FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2013
  • ** RETURNED MAIL ** (JUDGMENT BY NON-JT NOTICE ATTEMPTED TO B.BRITNEY) ** RETURNED MAIL ** (JUDGMENT BY NON-JT NOTICE ATTEMPTED TO B.BRITNEY)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2013
  • CLERK'S NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FILED AND MAILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2013
  • MOTION RULING ISSUED The court's tentative ruling is posted for parties to review. The matter is called for hearing. Plaintiff submits on the tentative ruling per moving papers. The court adopts the tentative ruling as the order of the court as follows: Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (filed 11/15/12) is GRANTED. Service and notice are in compliance. No opposition filed. Defendant's answer does not raise any disputed matter. Judgment shall be entered in favor of plaintiff/moving party, and against defendant Britney Bruce, as follows: Principal: $1,085.11 Interest: $ 0 (not requested) Atty. fees: $ 0 (not requested) Costs: $ 361.50 Total Judgment: $1,446.61 Moving party to give notice.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2013
  • MOTION RULING ISSUED The court's tentative ruling is posted for parties to review. The matter is called for hearing. Plaintiff submits on the tentative ruling per moving papers. The court adopts the tentative ruling as the order of the court as follows: Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (filed 11/15/12) is GRANTED. Service and notice are in compliance. No opposition filed. Defendant's answer does not raise any disputed matter. Judgment shall be entered in favor of plaintiff/moving party, and against defendant Britney Bruce, as follows: Principal: $1,085.11 Interest: $ 0 (not requested) Atty. fees: $ 0 (not requested) Costs: $ 361.50 Total Judgment: $1,446.61 Moving party to give notice.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2013
  • HEARING DELETED - OFF CALENDAR

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2013
  • PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY) FILED PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (SUMMARY) FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2013
  • NON-JURY TRIAL JUDGMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2012
  • CASE MANAGEMENT REVIEW/CONFERENCE MINUTE ORDER ENTERED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2012
  • NON-JURY TRIAL SET FOR 03/20/13, 0830 AM, DEPT 77 * * DELETED

    Read MoreRead Less
4 More Docket Entries
  • 08/09/2012
  • SUBMISSION FOR DEFAULT AND JUDGMENT PENDING *** DEFAULT PROCESSE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2012
  • REQUEST FOR DEFAULT FILED AND NOT ENTERED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2012
  • OSC VACATED - RESPONSIVE PLEADING FILED; CASE SET FOR CMR

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2012
  • FEE WAIVER FILED -RESPONDENT ANSWER FILING FEE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2012
  • RESPONSE FILED - ANSWER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2012
  • PROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2012
  • DECLARATION OF NON SERVICE FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2012
  • CMR SET 11/16/12, 0830 AM, DEPT. 77, NOTICE FILED & MAILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2012
  • SUMMONS FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2012
  • COMPLAINT FILED - COLLECTION CASE Filing Fee: 181.00

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 12K07530    Hearing Date: October 29, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT

(CCP § 473(d))

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC’s Motion to Vacate Judgment is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On February 6, 2012, Plaintiff Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (“Plaintiff”), a creditor, obtained a default judgment against Defendant Britney Bruce (“Defendant”), a debtor, for alleged debt Defendant failed to pay. Plaintiff now claims that Defendant’s account was placed in a disputed status and has been resolved in his favor. (Motion pp. 3-4.) As a result, Plaintiff admits that it should not have brought this action against Defendant and filed the instant Motion to Vacate Judgment (the “Motion”) under CCP § 473(d).

II. Discussion

“The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” (CCP § 473(d), emphasis added.) “[A]lthough clerical errors may be corrected at any time [under CCP § 473(d)], the only way for a court to correct judicial error is on a motion for new trial or on a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 663 to vacate the judgment and enter a different one. [Citation.] A clerical error results when the order or judgment misstates the court’s actual intent (i.e., error in recording the judgment rendered), and judicial error results when the order or judgment entered was intended, even though based on an error of law (i.e., error in rendering the judgment). [Citation.]” (Burch v. CertainTeed Corporation (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 341, 346, emphasis added.)

As Plaintiff admits, the mistake here that caused the entry of judgment is Plaintiff’s mistake, which is not a clerical error. Thus, CCP § 473(d) does not authorize this Court to vacate the judgment. Plaintiff provides no other authorities allowing this Court to vacate the judgment based on the facts presented. The Court therefore cannot vacate the judgment as requested.

The Court notes that the entry of judgment was a result of both parties’ mistakes. Defendant failed to appear in this action to defend herself. Similarly, Plaintiff failed to realize that Defendant was not the proper party.

To resolve the default judgment, Plaintiff may, as an alternative, file a satisfaction of judgment. “The general principle is well settled that a satisfaction of judgment is the last act and end of the proceeding.” (Brochier v. Brochier (1941) 17 Cal.2d 822, 825.)

III. Conclusion & Order

For the stated reasons, the Motion is DENIED.

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.