This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/07/2019 at 13:17:17 (UTC).

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC VS TORRES JR, ADOLFO F

Case Summary

On 08/31/2012 PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against TORRES JR, ADOLFO F. 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:

    ****3354

  • Filing Date:

    08/31/2012

  • 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

TORRES JR ADOLFO F

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/14/2013
  • PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL FILED.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2012
  • HEARING DELETED - OFF CALENDAR

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2012
  • DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY CLERK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2012
  • REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL FOR DOES 1 TO 25 FILED request for dismissal for does 1 to 25 filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2012
  • REQUEST FOR DEFAULT FILED AND ENTERED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2012
  • SUBMISSION FOR DEFAULT AND JUDGMENT PENDING *** DEFAULT PROCESSE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2012
  • PROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2012
  • DECLARATION OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2012
  • DECLARATION OF MAILING FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2012
  • OSC SET 03/04/13, 0830 AM, DEPT. 77, NOTICE FILED & MAILED * * DELETED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2012
  • COMPLAINT FILED - COLLECTION CASE Filing Fee: 181.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2012
  • SUMMONS FILED

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 12K13354    Hearing Date: November 20, 2019    Dept: 94

Portfolio v. Torres, et al.

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(CCP § 473(b))

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC’s Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

After default judgment was entered in December of 2012, Plaintiff Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (“Plaintiff”) brought the instant Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment (the “Motion”) on July 17, 2019. Plaintiff contends that after Plaintiff obtained Judgment, Defendant contacted Plaintiff and alleged that he was a victim of identity theft/fraud. (Motion, p. 4, Cook Decl. ¶4.) Plaintiff now seeks an order vacating the judgment and requests the Court dismiss the case concurrently. (Ibid.)

II. Discussion

Plaintiff moves under CCP § 473(b) which states that “[t]he court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” An application under this section must be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment. (CCP § 473(b).)

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.

Court clerk is to give notice.