On 08/24/2012 PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against SILVA, FERNANDO 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.
Disposed - Other Disposed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC
SILVA FERNANDO L
LEGAL RECOVERY LAW OFFICES INC
Court documents are not available for this case.
HEARING DELETED - OFF CALENDARRead MoreRead Less
DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY CLERKRead MoreRead Less
SUBMISSION FOR DEFAULT AND JUDGMENT PENDING *** DEFAULT PROCESSERead MoreRead Less
REQUEST FOR DEFAULT FILED AND ENTEREDRead MoreRead Less
DISMISSAL OF DOES 1-10 DISMISSAL OF DOES 1-10Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILEDRead MoreRead Less
DECLARATION OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE FILEDRead MoreRead Less
DECLARATION OF MAILING FILEDRead MoreRead Less
OSC SET 02/25/13, 0830 AM, DEPT. 77, NOTICE FILED & MAILED * * DELETEDRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FILED - COLLECTION CASE Filing Fee: 181.00Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONS FILEDRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: 12K12976 Hearing Date: November 20, 2019 Dept: 94
Portfolio v. Silva, et al.
MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT
(CCP § 473(d))
Plaintiff Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC’s Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED and the case is dismissed with prejudice.
After default judgment was entered in Fall 2012, Plaintiff Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (“Plaintiff”) brought the instant Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment (the “Motion”) on July 11, 2019. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s account was placed in dispute status and Plaintiff resolved the dispute in favor of Defendant. (Motion, pp. 3-4.) As such, Plaintiff does not intend to pursue collection of the debt against Defendant and requests the Court dismiss the action with prejudice. (Ibid.)
Plaintiff moves under CCP § 473(d) which states that “[t]he 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.”
However, although “it is well settled in this state that a court has no power to set aside on motion a judgment or order not void on its face unless the motion is made within a reasonable time, and it has been definitely determined that such time will not extend beyond the limited time fixed by section of the Code of Civil Procedure as at present in force, (Citations)…to the rule just stated there is a well-established exception which provides that although the judgment or order is valid on its face, if the party in favor of whom the judgment or order runs admits facts showing its invalidity, or, without objection on his part, evidence is admitted which clearly shows the existence of such facts, then it is the duty of the court to declare the judgment or order void. (Thompson v. Cook (1942) 20 Cal.2d 564, 568.) Because the default judgment was the result of identity theft, Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Default is granted, and the case is dismissed with prejudice.
Court clerk to give notice.
II. Conclusion & Order
The Motion is therefore GRANTED. The default judgment is vacated, and the case is dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff to give notice.