Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/19/2016 at 02:54:51 (UTC).

SHP CAPITAL VS SUNGWOK JUNG

Case Summary

On 03/11/2010 SHP CAPITAL filed a Property - Residential Eviction lawsuit against SUNGWOK JUNG. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DUKES, ROBERT A. and MEEKA, PETER J.. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8225

  • Filing Date:

    03/11/2010

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Property - Residential Eviction

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DUKES, ROBERT A.

MEEKA, PETER J.

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SHP CAPITAL LP

Defendant

JUNG SUNWOK

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

WELLS DUSTIN

BOUZANE JOHN E. LAW OFFICES OF

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/09/2016
  • Filed Writ of Exec (RETURN ON ATTACHMENT/EXECUTION ON WRIT ISSUED 7/27/15 TO LA CO FILED AND RETURNED: PARTIALLY SATISFIED ) Filed by Judgment Creditor

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2015
  • Order (DETERMINING CLAIM OF EXEMPTION ) Filed by Judgment Debtor

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2015
  • Claim of Exemption Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2015
  • Cost Bill after Judgmt(685.070ccp) Filed by Judgment Creditor

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2015
  • Writ-Other (ISSUED TO LA CO ) Filed by Judgment Creditor

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2012
  • Abstract of Judgment Filed by Judgment Creditor

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2011
  • Default Judgment Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2011
  • Request for Court Judgment-Default Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2011
  • Declaration (OF PAMELA OZELL ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2011
  • Dismissal of Does (WITH PREJUDICE ONLY AS TO DOES ) Filed by Judgment Creditor

    Read MoreRead Less
1 More Docket Entries
  • 06/07/2010
  • Filed Writ of Exec (WRIT ISSUED 4/8/10 TO LA CO FILED AND RETURNED: FULLY SATISFIED ) Filed by Judgment Creditor

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2010
  • Appl for Writ of Execution & Order (FOR POSSESSION ONLY ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2010
  • Application - misc (APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT FOR RESTITUTION OF PREMISES ONLY ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2010
  • Default Judgment (CLERK'S JUDGMENT- UD *POSSESSION ONLY* *COURT JUDGMENT SENT TO DEPT O WITH FILE* ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2010
  • Writ-Other (FOR POSSESSION ONLY ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2010
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2010
  • Default Entered (AND CLERK'S JUDGMENT *POSSESSION ONLY* **COURT JUDGMENT SENT TO DEPT O W/ FILE ON 9/23/11** ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2010
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl (ALL UNKNOWN OCCUPANTS ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2010
  • Notice-Case Management Conference Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2010
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: KC058225    Hearing Date: April 12, 2021    Dept: O

Defendant Sungwok Jung’s Motion to Set Aside Renewal of Judgment is GRANTED.

Defendant Sunkwok Jung (“Judgment Debtor”) moves to vacate the Renewal of Judgment filed by the Judgment Creditor SHP Capital LP (“Judgment Creditor”) and granted by the court through a Motion to Set Aside/Vacate the renewal of the Judgment.

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 683.160 and 683.170(b):

A judgment debtor may move to vacate or modify the renewal (serving notice of the motion on the judgment creditor personally or by mail) within thirty days from the date that the notice of the renewal application is filed with the court clerk.

(CCP §§ 683.160 and 683.170(b).) The renewal may be vacated on any ground that would be a defense to an action on the judgment, including the ground that the amount stated in the renewal is incorrect, or the renewal application was filed less than 5 years from the date of the previous renewal.(CCP § 683.170.)

Other defenses include:

The judgment is not final and unconditional The judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud

· The judgment was rendered in excess of jurisdiction

· The judgment is not enforceable in the state of rendition

· The plaintiff is guilty of misconduct

· The judgment has already been paid

· Suit on the judgment is barred by the statute of limitations in the state where enforcement is sought

(See Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195)

The original judgment was entered on September 28, 2011. Judgment Creditor applied for an application for renewal of judgment on January 19, 2021, which was automatically granted by the court clerk on January 20, 2021. (See CCP § 683.150 (which states such applications result in automatic renewal of the judgment).)

Judgement Debtor attests that he was never served with the motion for renewal of judgment. (Declaration of Sungwok Jung [Jung Decl.], 4:4-7.) Judgment Debtor also attests that this court should vacate the renewal of this judgment because he was never properly served with the original summons and complaint back in and around March 2010 and, thus, contends the judgment was rendered in excess of jurisdiction due to lack of proper service of summons on Judgment Debtor. (Jung Decl., 2:18 - 3:15.)

In opposition, Judgment Creditor cites to irrelevant law regarding motion to set aside default judgment under section 473. Particularly, Plaintiff contends that the court cannot side aside the judgment because Defendant failed to timely file a motion to set aside default (i.e., this motion was not filed within the 6 months from the date the original judgment was entered). Here, however, Judgment Debtor is not seeking to set aside default judgment through section 473. He is merely seeking to vacate the renewal of judgment, which is controlled by section 683.170. Judgment Creditor offers no substantive argument regarding the contentions that Defendant presented in his Motion. Thus, Judgment Creditor fails to rebut Judgment Debtor’s contention that he was never properly served.

Accordingly, motion is GRANTED.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer BOUZANE JOHN E. ESQ.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer WELLS DUSTIN