Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/08/2021 at 15:39:34 (UTC).

JORGE RAMIREZ VS JORGE DELGADO, ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/20/2014 JORGE RAMIREZ filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against JORGE DELGADO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are BRIAN F. GASDIA, RAUL A. SAHAGUN, ROGER ITO and MARGARET MILLER BERNAL. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4222

  • Filing Date:

    08/20/2014

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Norwalk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

BRIAN F. GASDIA

RAUL A. SAHAGUN

ROGER ITO

MARGARET MILLER BERNAL

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Respondent

RAMIREZ JORGE

Defendants and Appellants

DELGADO JORGE

DOMINION MARKETING GROUP LLC

TELEIMPACTO

TELEIMPACTO DISTRIBUTION

TELEIMPACTO PRODUCTION

Assignee

JUDGMENT RECOVERY ASSISTANCE LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

COUNTS LAW FIRM PC

COMPTON DAVID KEITH

Defendant Attorney

GRAHAM JUSTIN DRAYTON

 

Court Documents

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUED MOTION TO ATTACH SPOUSAL WAGES; NOTICE OF ADVANCEMENT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

11/9/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUED MOTION TO ATTACH SPOUSAL WAGES; NOTICE OF ADVANCEMENT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

11/12/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

12/15/2020: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103

12/23/2020: Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103

Notice of Case Management Conference

8/20/2014: Notice of Case Management Conference

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

9/4/2014: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

Minute Order

12/26/2014: Minute Order

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl

1/9/2015: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Opposition

4/22/2015: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Opposition

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Request for Correction

6/25/2015: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Request for Correction

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Default Entered

7/6/2015: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Default Entered

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice

8/18/2015: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

9/9/2015: Request for Judicial Notice

Minute Order - Minute Order COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF REPORTS TELEPHONICALLY

5/27/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF REPORTS TELEPHONICALLY

Substitution of Attorney

6/11/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

6/11/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Writ filed- control of : Wells Fargo bank

6/11/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Writ filed- control of : Wells Fargo bank

Proof of Personal Service -

7/4/2018: Proof of Personal Service -

65 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/12/2021
  • Hearing01/12/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department C at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Hearing on Ex Parte Application Exparte Application To Stay Enforcement Pending Appeal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2020
  • DocketEx Parte Application (Stay Enforcement); Filed by JORGE DELGADO (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/23/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103; Filed by JORGE DELGADO (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal (for Notice of Appeal, filed 12/14/20); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2020
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2020
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed; Filed by JORGE DELGADO (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion - Other (MOTION TO ATTACH SPOUSAL WAGES) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2020
  • DocketOrder (earing of 12/2/20); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other MOTION TO ATTACH SPOUSAL WAGES; Hea...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
79 More Docket Entries
  • 12/26/2014
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by JORGE RAMIREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2014
  • DocketMinute Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2014
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by JORGE RAMIREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2014
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by JORGE RAMIREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2014
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by JORGE RAMIREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2014
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2014
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by JORGE RAMIREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2014
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2014
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/20/2014
  • DocketStatement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death); Filed by JORGE RAMIREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC064222    Hearing Date: December 02, 2020    Dept: C

RAMIREZ v. DELGADO, et al.

CASE NO.: VC064222

HEARING: 12/2/20 @ 1:30 PM

[Remote appearances are encouraged and will be given priority.]

#5

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Defendant Delgado’s motion to vacate default judgment is DENIED.

II. Judgment Creditor Judgment Recovery Assistance, LLC’s motion to attach spousal wages is GRANTED.

Judgment Creditor to give NOTICE.

I. Set Aside Default

The original Complaint in this action was filed on 8/20/14.

On 2/17/15, default was entered against Defendant Delgado.

On 2/20/15, Defendant filed an Answer. Because Defendant’s Answer was filed after entry of default was taken, the Answer is untimely and void. The court’s Minute Order dated 2/27/15 provides that “The answer filed by Defendant Jose Delgado was filed after the default was entered. The default remains in place.” Plaintiff’s Notice filed on 3/2/15 also provides, “The Court confirmed the Default of Defendant Jorge Delgado was entered February 17, 2015 before his Answer of February 20, 2015, and therefore, the Court deemed Delgado’s Answer untimely, void, and stricken.”

On 5/27/15, the court denied Defendant Delgado’s motion to quash service, and granted Defendant’s motion to set aside default, ordering Delgado to file a responsive pleading within 20 days.

Defendant FAILED to file a responsive pleading by the deadline set by the court.

Thereafter, default was entered against Delgado on 7/6/15, and default judgment was entered on 9/9/15.

In the instant motion, Defendant contends that the default judgment was void pursuant to CCP § 473(d) because Defendant was not properly served. However, substantial compliance with the service of summons statutes is

sufficient to defeat a motion under CCP 473(d). (Gibble v. Car–Lene Research, Inc. (1998) 67 CA4th 295, 313; Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 CA4th 540, 544 —court may set aside default judgment valid on its face, but void as a matter of law due to improper service.)

As determined by the court on 5/27/15, and again here, the court finds that Plaintiff has substantially complied with the service of summons statutes.

Further, Defendant made a general appearance by requesting the court to set aside the initial default. The court granted the request, and therefore, the court has jurisdiction over Defendant, and Defendant’s argument based on improper service is deemed waived.

Defendant alternatively argues that the court “should have acknowledged and deemed Delgado’s answer filed as of the date that it vacated the entry of default.” (Motion, 5:24-25.)

However, the cases cited by Defendant are distinguishable. In County of Los Angeles v. Lewis, the answer was filed two days before the motion to set aside default was served, and the motion stated that the proposed answer was “attached hereto.” The court held that the answer filed two days earlier was “in substance and effect” deemed to accompany the notice. Here, Defendant’s initial motion to set aside the default did not even address any Answer “attached hereto,” and Defendant’s untimely answer was filed two months before the motion. In County of Stanislaus v. Johnson, the court did not make any specific order relating to Defendant’s Answer. Here, this court specifically deemed Delgado’s Answer was untimely because “The answer filed by Defendant Jose Delgado was filed after the default was entered. The default remains in place.” On 5/27/15, this court further ordered Delgado to file a responsive pleading within 20 days. These facts are distinguishable from the authorities cited by Defendant.

Finally, although Defendant cited extrinsic fraud or mistake, Defendant failed to substantiate any extrinsic fraud or mistake. Three elements must be satisfied to set aside a judgment based upon extrinsic mistake: first the defaulted party must show that it has a meritorious case; secondly it must articulate a satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense to the original action; and lastly it must demonstrate that it was diligent in seeking to set aside the default once it had been discovered. This rule applies equally where the motion is to vacate an order of dismissal. (Aldrich v. San Fernando Valley Lumber Co. (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 725, 735-737.) If a Defendant proceeds by noticed motion in the main action, his or her moving papers should contain a copy of a proposed answer showing a valid defense, and declarations showing facts to support such defense. (Shields v. Siegel (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 334, 337.)

Defendant failed to present any evidence supporting a meritorious defense, failed to articulate a satisfactory excuse for not presenting the defense sooner, and was not diligent in seeking to set aside the default. Defendant waited almost five years to bring the instant motion.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

II. Attach Spousal Wages

Judgment Creditor Judgment Recovery Assistance, LLC moves to attach spousal wages.

Judgment Creditor obtained a judgment against Defendants Delgado and Dominion Marketing Group, LLC for $97,480 on 9/9/15. Judgment Debtor has made no attempt to resolve the judgment, which remains outstanding.

Judgment Debtor is married to Alma Delgado, who lists their date of marriage on an online profile as March 4, 2000. (Compton Decl., ¶ 4.) Thus, Judgment Debtor was married at the time the debt was incurred in 2015, so the community estate becomes subject to enforcement of the judgment.

In opposition, Judgment Debtor contends the judgment is void pursuant to CCP § 473(d). However, no court has adjudged the judgment to be void, and Judgment Debtor’s motion to set aside the judgment is not now before the court.

Having failed to raise any substantive opposition to the motion to attach spousal wages, the court finds Judgment Creditor’s request to attach spousal wages is valid.

Motion is GRANTED.

Case Number: VC064222    Hearing Date: November 03, 2020    Dept: C

RAMIREZ v. DELGADO, et al.

CASE NO.: VC064222

HEARING: 11/3/20 @ 2:30 PM

[Remote appearances are encouraged and will be given priority.]

#9

TENTATIVE ORDER

Judgment Creditor Judgment Recovery Assistance, LLC’s motion to attach spousal wages is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Judgment Creditor Judgment Recovery Assistance, LLC moves to attach spousal wages.

Judgment Creditor obtained a judgment against Defendants Delgado and Dominion Marketing Group, LLC for $97,480 on 9/9/15. Judgment Debtor has made no attempt to resolve the judgment, which remains outstanding.

Judgment Debtor is married to Alma Delgado, who lists their date of marriage on an online profile as March 4, 2000. (Compton Decl., ¶ 4.) Thus, Judgment Debtor was married at the time the debt was incurred in 2015, so the community estate becomes subject to enforcement of the judgment.

In opposition, Judgment Debtor contends the judgment is void pursuant to CCP § 473(d). However, no court has adjudged the judgment to be void, and Judgment Debtor’s motion to set aside the judgment is not now before the court.

Having failed to raise any substantive opposition to the motion to attach spousal wages, the court finds Judgment Creditor’s request to attach spousal wages is valid.

Motion is GRANTED.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Judgment Recovery Assistance, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GRAHAM JUSTIN DRAYTON