This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/05/2020 at 06:00:57 (UTC).

SAN TAN HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS MARIA JOSIELYNE DY ANGELES

Case Summary

On 06/10/2019 SAN TAN HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION filed an Other - Other Judgment lawsuit against MARIA JOSIELYNE DY ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2332

  • Filing Date:

    06/10/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Other - Other Judgment

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SAN TAN HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Defendant

DY ANGELES MARIA JOSIELYNE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BAILLIO AUSTIN

Defendant Attorney

LIAO KALEB

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment)

8/3/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment)

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/21/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Writ - Return - Writ - Return

4/2/2020: Writ - Return - Writ - Return

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

3/20/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Brief (name extension) - Brief Defendant's Supplemental Brief in Support of her Motion to Vacate Sister-State Judgment

2/28/2020: Brief (name extension) - Brief Defendant's Supplemental Brief in Support of her Motion to Vacate Sister-State Judgment

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

1/29/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition San Tan Heights Homeowners Association's Opposition to Debtor's Motion to Vacate a Sister-State Judgment

1/6/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition San Tan Heights Homeowners Association's Opposition to Debtor's Motion to Vacate a Sister-State Judgment

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

1/6/2020: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims - Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

10/25/2019: Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims - Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment) of 10/23/2019

10/23/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment) of 10/23/2019

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment)

10/23/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment)

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

8/22/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) ADDITIONAL COURT FEES

8/23/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) ADDITIONAL COURT FEES

Proof of Service (Sister State Judgment) - Proof of Service (Sister State Judgment)

9/3/2019: Proof of Service (Sister State Judgment) - Proof of Service (Sister State Judgment)

Writ of Execution - Writ of Execution (Los Angeles)

9/9/2019: Writ of Execution - Writ of Execution (Los Angeles)

Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment

6/10/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment

Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment - Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment

6/10/2019: Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment - Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

6/10/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

17 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment scheduled for 08/03/2020 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 08/03/2020; Result Type to Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2020
  • DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Hearing on Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment scheduled for 06/09/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Rescheduled by Court was rescheduled to 08/03/2020 09:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Writ of Execution (Los Angeles): Filed By: San Tan Heights Homeowners Association (Plaintiff); Result: Returned and Filed; Result Date: 04/02/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2020
  • DocketWrit - Return ( Unsatisfied);; Costs Credits: 0.00; Interest Credits: 0.00; Principal Credits: 0.00; Possession: No; Judgment Satisfaction Type: Unsatisfied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2020
  • DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Hearing on Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment scheduled for 03/25/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 06/09/2020 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by: Maria Josielyne Dy Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2020
  • DocketBrief Defendant's Supplemental Brief in Support of her Motion to Vacate Sister-State Judgment; Filed by: Maria Josielyne Dy Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
27 More Docket Entries
  • 08/22/2019
  • DocketRequest to Waive Additional Court Fees (Superior Court); Filed by: Maria Josielyne Dy Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2019
  • DocketThe case is placed in special status of: Stay - Other

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2019
  • DocketCase assigned in ROOM 118 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • DocketJudgment; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • DocketCourt orders judgment entered for Plaintiff San Tan Heights Homeowners Association against Defendant Maria Josielyne Dy Angeles on the Petition filed by San Tan Heights Homeowners Association on 06/10/2019 for the principal amount of $6,950.34, interest of $1,286.94, and costs of $225.00 for a total of $8,462.28.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: San Tan Heights Homeowners Association (Plaintiff); As to: Maria Josielyne Dy Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • DocketNotice Notice of Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment; Filed by: San Tan Heights Homeowners Association (Plaintiff); As to: Maria Josielyne Dy Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • DocketApplication for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment; Filed by: San Tan Heights Homeowners Association (Plaintiff); As to: Maria Josielyne Dy Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • DocketUpdated -- Notice Notice of Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment: Name Extension changed from Notice of Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment to Notice of Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment; As To Parties changed from Maria Josielyne Dy Angeles (Defendant) to Maria Josielyne Dy Angeles (Defendant); Status changed from Filed to Issued and Filed

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STCP02332    Hearing Date: August 03, 2020    Dept: 26

VACATE SISTER STATE JUDGMENT

(CCP §§ 1710.30, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Judgment Debtor Maria Josielyne Dy Angeles’s Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On June 10, 2019, Judgment Creditor San Tan Heights Homeowners Association (“Judgment Creditor”) filed an Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister State Judgment. The Court entered judgment the same day against Judgment Debtor Maria Josielyne Dy Angeles (“Judgment Debtor”). On August 22, 2019, Judgment Debtor filed the instant Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment, which came for hearing on October 23, 2019. At the initial hearing, the Court continued the matter upon finding that the Motion was improperly served on Judgment Creditor by Judgment Debtor, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a. Judgment Creditor did not appear at that time. The Court continued the hearing to January 22, 2020 and ordered Judgment Debtor to properly serve Judgment Creditor.

At the January 22, 2020 hearing, the Court again continued the matter, with orders that the parties file supplemental briefs addressing “the amount of the judgment entered here as compared to entered and renewed in Arizona.” (Minute Order, 1/22/20.) No other briefing was permitted.

On January 29, 2020, Judgment Creditor filed its supplemental opposition, and Judgment Debtor filed her supplemental brief on February 28, 2020.

Discussion

Judgment Debtor argues that the amount of the 2019 Arizona judgment is less than the amount claimed in the application for sister state judgment. The supplemental briefing filed by Judgment Creditor, however, shows that the amount of the Arizona judgment is correctly reflected on the application for, and entry of, sister-state judgment.

Specifically, on February 9, 2012 in Pinal County Justice Court, Judgment Creditor obtained the judgment against Judgment Debtor in the amount of $4,181.35, plus 4.25% interest per annum. (App. For Sister-State Judgment, filed 6/10/19, Exh. 1, ¶6.) On May 9, 2019, the Maricopa County Justice Court granted Judgment Creditor an attorney’s fees and costs judgment in the amount of $2,769.00. (Id. at Exh. 3.) The total judgment from Arizona, therefore, was $6,950.35. This matches the amount indicated in the application for sister-state judgment and entered by the Court.

Judgment Debtor has not demonstrated any discrepancy in the amount of the judgment entered by this Court compared to that entered in Arizona. Judgment Debtor’s supplemental opposition brief does not address the amount of the judgment at all, but rather, raises arguments regarding service of the Arizona judgment and application for sister state judgment. The Court did not authorize briefing on the service issue, which its January 22, 2020 ruling addressed in detail.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Judgment Debtor has not demonstrated a basis to vacate or modify the entry of sister-state judgment. Judgment Debtor’s Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment is DENIED.Judgment Creditor to give notice.

Case Number: 19STCP02332    Hearing Date: January 22, 2020    Dept: 26

San Tan Homeowners Association v. Maria Josielyne Dy Angeles, et al.

VACATE SISTER STATE JUDGMENT

(CCP §§ 1710.30, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Judgment Debtor Maria Josielyne Dy Angeles’s Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment is CONTINUED TO MARCH 25, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26.

ANALYSIS:

On June 10, 2019, Judgment Creditor San Tan Heights Homeowners Association (“Judgment Creditor”) filed an Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister State Judgment. The Court entered judgment the same day against Judgment Debtor Maria Josielyne Dy Angeles (“Judgment Debtor”). On August 22, 2019, Judgment Debtor filed the instant Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment, which came for hearing on October 23, 2019. At the initial hearing, the Court continued the matter upon finding that the Motion was improperly served on Judgment Creditor by Judgment Debtor, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a. Judgment Creditor did not appear at that time. The Court continued the hearing to January 22, 2020 and ordered Judgment Debtor to properly serve Judgment Creditor.

Compliance with Service Requirements

On December 12, 2019, Judgment Debtor filed the Motion to Vacate again with a proof of service attached. The proof of service still fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a, which states in relevant part:

An affidavit setting forth the exact title of the document served and filed in the cause, showing the name and residence or business address of the person making the service, showing that he or she is a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing occurs, that he or she is over the age of 18 years and not a party to the cause, and showing the date and place of deposit in the mail, the name and address of the person served as shown on the envelope, and also showing that the envelope was sealed and deposited in the mail with the postage thereon fully prepaid.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a, subd. (1).) The proof of service is incomplete because it does not list the documents that were served and does not indicate the name of the person who signed it. (Motion, filed 12/12/19, Proof of Service.) Nor does it indicate that person’s residence or business address. (Ibid.) Finally, the proof of service does not state the name and address of the person served as shown on the envelope. (Ibid.) Proof of service of the Motion, therefore, still does not comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a. The Court admonishes Judgment Debtor’s failure to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a. However, given that Judgment Creditor has filed an opposition and does not indicate any problem with service, the Court finds it can hear the Motion.

Merits of Motion to Vacate

The Court also finds that Judgment Debtor’s Motion should be denied on the merits. On June 6, 2019, Judgment Creditor San Tan Heights Homeowners Association filed an application for entry of sister-state judgment in the total amount of $8,462.28 ($6,950.34 [unpaid judgment] + $225 [filing fee] + $1,286.94 [interest on judgment]). The Court Clerk entered the sister-state judgment on June 10, 2019.

“A judgment entered pursuant to this chapter may be vacated on any ground which would be a defense to an action in this state on the sister state judgment, including the ground that the amount of interest accrued on the sister state judgment and included in the judgment entered pursuant to this chapter is incorrect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1710.40, subd. (a).) This provision has been interpreted to mean vacating the underlying judgment, as opposed to vacation of the entry of judgment that takes place in California. (Tsakos Shipping & Trading, S.A. v. Juniper Garden Town Homes, Ltd. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 74, 94-97 [vacating New York state judgment based on extrinsic fraud or mistake].)

“The party moving under section 1710.40 to set aside the sister state judgment has ‘the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence why it was entitled to relief. [Citation.]’” (Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 841 [quoting Tsakos Shipping & Trading, S.A. v. Juniper Garden Town Homes, Ltd. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 74, 88.)

“Notice of entry of judgment shall be served promptly by the judgment creditor upon the judgment debtor in the manner provided for service of summons by Article 3 (commencing with Section 415.10) of Chapter 4 of Title 5 of Part 2. Notice shall be in a form prescribed by the Judicial Council and shall inform the judgment debtor that the judgment debtor has 30 days within which to make a motion to vacate the judgment.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1710.30, subd. (a).)

Judgment Debtor makes three arguments in the Motion: (1) the Arizona state judgment did not comply with Arizona state rules for service of summons and complaint, (2) the notice of entry of the Arizona state judgment in California did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1710.30, and (3) the judgment that was entered incorrectly indicated the amount of the Arizona state judgment.

Service of the Arizona Action

Judgment Debtor fails to include any evidence in the moving papers and therefore, does not meet her burden as the moving party. (Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc., supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at 841.) Although Judgment Debtor has signed the moving papers, her statements are not made under penalty of perjury, and thus, the moving papers do not constitute a declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.) Thus, this argument must fail.

Even if the court looked passed the absence of the evidence, Judgment Debtor’s legal argument is without merit. Judgment Debtor argues that Arizona’s civil procedure rules require personal service of the summons and complaint. However, a review of the rule cited by Judgment Debtor shows that substituted service is also permissible. (Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1, subd. (d).) Judgment Debtor does not assert that Judgment Creditor failed to complete substituted service. So, she has not foreclosed the possibility that the underlying complaint was properly served pursuant to Arizona law. Accordingly, the Court determines there is not ground to vacate the Arizona state judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1710.40, subd. (a).)

Service of Entry of Sister-State Judgment

Proof of service of notice of entry of judgment on sister-state judgment was filed in this action on September 3, 2019. It shows substituted service was completed on Jane Doe (who refused to provide name) at Judgment Debtor’s address followed by mailing to the same address. (Proof of Service, filed 9/2/13, ¶2.) Substituted service complies with the requirement that the notice of entry of judgment being served in the manner provided for service of summons by Article 3 (commencing with Section 415.10). Judgment Debtor contends service was improper because “[t]he copy of the judgement was left outside my front door either on July 22 or 23, 2019.” (Mot. 3:2.) However, Judgment Debtor fails to provide evidence of this.

A review of the case law on section 1710.30 does not show ample discussion reviewing sufficient service of the notice of entry of judgment. Even if the court were to apply the standard for quashing service of summons and complaint, which immediately places the burden on the plaintiff to show service was proper, the evidence still weighs in favor of Judgment Creditor because the proof of service appears valid and Judgment Debtor provides no evidence. (See Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163 (holding that in a motion to quash service of summons and complaint the plaintiff bore the burden of showing facts requisite to valid service and the proof of service declaration ordinarily creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper).)

Accordingly, the court does not find any defect in the notice of entry of judgment under section 1710.30.

Amount of Judgment

In sole support of this argument, Judgment Debtor asserts that “[t]he judgment amount accumulated in Arizona in 2019 is less than the amount claimed in the sister state judgment.” While it is unclear what Judgment Debtor states is the cause of a discrepancy, it appears that Judgment Creditor has requested a larger amount of principal than is reflected on the sister-state judgment.

On February 9, 2012, Judgment Creditor obtained the judgment against Judgment Debtor in the amount of $4,181.35, plus 4.25% interest per annum.

On January 27, 2017, Judgment Creditor obtained a “Affidavit of Judgment Renewal”, which restated the amounts owed by Judgment Creditor, indicated interest was also owed, and stated “[t]he exact amount due upon the judgment after allowing all set-offs and payments known to Affiant, and other facts or circumstances necessary to complete disclosure as to the exact condition of the judgment is $6,670.76, as of January 26th, 2017 including accruing attorney fees and costs subject to court approval.”

In the application for entry of judgment on sister-state judgment, Judgment Creditor indicated the following amounts were owed by Judgment Debtor:

Amount remaining unpaid on sister-state judgment: $6,950.34

Amount of filing fee for the application: $225.00

Accrued interest on sister-state judgment: $1,286.94

Amount of judgment to be entered: $8,462.28

The application indicates the only sister-state judgments at issue are dated: February 9, 2012 and January 27, 2017 (renewal).

Based on a review of the sister-state judgments, the amount of principal of the unpaid judgment is $4,181.35. Thus, the request for $6,950.34 appears excessive; this amount would even be excessive if it was the sum of unpaid judgment and interest thereon—the interest under that calculation would be about $2,800, which is more than what appears to be the proper amount, $1,286.94. The request for interest ($1,286.94) appears an accurate calculation of 4.25% on $4,181.35 from February 9, 2019 to present.

Notably, Judgment Creditor’s opposition offers no discussion of the amount of the judgment entered here as compared to the amount entered and renewed in Arizona. Unless Judgment Creditor can explain the difference in the amount sought to be entered here through detailed calculations, the Court would be inclined to vacate the judgment and enter a new judgment by changing the amount remaining unpaid on sister-state judgment from $6,950.34 to $4,181.35.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the hearing on Judgment Debtor’s Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment is CONTINUED TO MARCH 25, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE, JUDGMENT CREDITOR IS TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ADDRESSING THE AMOUNT OF THE JUDGMENT ENTERED HERE AS COMPARED TO ENTERED AND RENEWED IN ARIZONA.

Judgment Creditor to give notice.