Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/14/2016 at 22:36:22 (UTC).

NATIONAL COMMERCIAL RECOVERY INC VS FRESH CUT PRODUCE COMPANY

Case Summary

On 04/28/2009 NATIONAL COMMERCIAL RECOVERY INC filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against FRESH CUT PRODUCE COMPANY. 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:

    ****8611

  • Filing Date:

    04/28/2009

  • 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

NATIONAL COMMERCIAL RECOVERY INC

Defendants

FRESH-PIC PRODUCE COMPANY INC

SAUCEDO KARINA

AVILA FRANK

RASCON FRANCISCA

SALINAS ROBERTO

FRESH CUT PRODUCE COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GLENN A BESNYL ATTORNEY AT LAW

Defendant Attorney

MAYNARD, JAMES N

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/12/2010
  • DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE - FILED & ENTERED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2010
  • MOTION RULING ISSUED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2010
  • NON-JURY TRIAL SET FOR 10/12/10, 08:30 AM, DEPT 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2010
  • REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2010
  • OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FRANCISCA RASCON'S MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2010
  • MOTION FILED: MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT HEARING SET FOR 3/01/10

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2010
  • RESPONSE FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2010
  • A/C - MOTION FILING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2009
  • ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT ISSUED/RETURNED BY MAIL/MC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/18/2009
  • ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT ISSUED/RETURNED BY MAIL/MC

    Read MoreRead Less
16 More Docket Entries
  • 07/01/2009
  • ALL FUTURE HEARING DATES ARE NOW SET IN DEPARTMENT 77.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2009
  • SUBMISSION FOR DEFAULT ONLY PENDING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2009
  • REQUEST FOR DEFAULT FILED AND ENTERED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2009
  • PROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2009
  • PROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2009
  • PROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2009
  • NON-APP CASE MGMT REVIEW SCHEDULED FOR 07/28/09, IN DEPT CLK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2009
  • CMR CLERK'S CERT OF SERVICE MAILED TO RESPECTIVE PARTIES/COUNSEL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2009
  • COMPLAINT FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2009
  • SUMMONS FILED

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 09K08611    Hearing Date: November 19, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT

(CCP § 683.170)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant / Judgment Debtor Karina Saucedo’s Motion to Vacate the Renewal of Judgment is DENIED.

OPPOSITION: Filed September 11, 2019 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed September 17, 2019 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On Setepmber 4, 2009, default judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff National Commercial Recovery, Inc. (“Judgment Creditor”) and against Defendants Fresh Cut Produce Company, Fresh-Pic Produce Company, Inc., Roberto Salinas, Frank Avila (“Mr. Avila”), and Karina Saucedo Karina Saucedo (“Ms. Saucedo”) (collectively, “Judgment Debtors”). The judgment was renewed on July 15, 2019.

Contending that she did not receive the Summons and Complaint, Ms. Saucedo brought the instant Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment (the “Motion”) under CCP § 683.170 on August 13, 2019. Judgment Creditor filed its Opposition on September 11.

II. Legal Standard

CCP § 683.170 provides in pertinent part:

“(a) The renewal of a judgment pursuant to this article may be vacated on any ground that would be a defense to an action on the judgment, including the ground that the amount of the renewed judgment as entered pursuant to this article is incorrect, and shall be vacated if the application for renewal was filed within five years from the time the judgment was previously renewed under this article.

(b) Not later than 30 days after service of the notice of renewal pursuant to Section 683.160, the judgment debtor may apply by noticed motion under this section for an order of the court vacating the renewal of the judgment. The notice of motion shall be served on the judgment creditor. Service shall be made personally or by mail.

(c) Upon the hearing of the motion, the renewal may be ordered vacated upon any ground provided in subdivision (a), and another and different renewal may be entered, including, but not limited to, the renewal of the judgment in a different amount if the decision of the court is that the judgment creditor is entitled to renewal in a different amount.”

“A successful motion under section 683.170 does not affect the validity of the default or the default judgment. [Citation.] A successful motion under section 683.170 vacates only the renewal of the judgment thereby precluding its extended enforceability under section 683.120.” (Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne “The judgment debtor bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she is entitled to relief under section 683.170.” (Id. at p. 199.)

III. Analysis

“‘Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named defendant.’ [Citation.]” (AO Alfa-Bank v. Yakovlev (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 189, 202.) “A summons is the process by which a court acquires personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil action. The form of a summons is prescribed by law, and this form must be substantially observed. [Citation.] Service of a substantially defective summons does not confer jurisdiction over a party [citation] and will not support a default judgment. [Citation.]” (MJS Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 555, 557.) “[D]efective service of process is a defense which may be raised on a motion to vacate renewal of a judgment.” (Fidelity, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at 203.) “[A] default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner prescribed by statute is void.’ [Citation.]” (Sakaguchi v. Sakaguchi (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 852, 858.)

Here, the Proof of Service shows that Ms. Saucedo was served by substitution through her stepfather, Mr. Avila, on May 14, 2009 by a registered process server. (Oppo., Exh. A.) “Evidence Code section 647 provides that a registered process server’s declaration of service establishes a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence of the facts stated in the declaration. [Citation.]” (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 390.) Thus, the substituted service on Ms. Saucedo is entitled to a presumption of valid service.

Ms. Saucedo declares that she had not known about this action against her until Judgment Creditor applied for a renewal of judgment and that she never received the Summons and Complaint for this action. (Motion, Saucedo ¶¶ 2-3.) She also submits a declaration from her stepfather, Mr. Avila, who attests that he “not recall receiving service of copies of the summons or complaint in this matter,” and “[e]ven if [he] did receive copies of the summons and complaint, [he] know[s] that [he] never gave copies of the summons or complaint to Karina Saucedo. [He does] not recall speaking to her about the case.” (Id., Avila Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4.) Because the substituted service is presumed valid, however, merely denying service took place without more is insufficient to overcome the presumption. (See Palm Property Investments, LLC v. Yadegar 1428.) In other words, Ms. Saucedo fails to meet her evidentiary burden entitling her to relief from the renewed judgment.

Importantly, CCP § 415.20, the statute for substituted service, does not require that Saucedo actually received the Summons and Complaint, or that Avila gave the Summons and Complaint to Ms. Saucedo or informed her about the case. Thus, Ms. Saucedo’s and Mr. Avila’s testimonies as to these facts are irrelevant.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the stated reasons, the Motion is DENIED.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where NATIONAL COMMERCIAL RECOVERY INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA BLAIR SMITH AND ASSOCIATES is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BESNYL GLENN ALAN