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.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Pomona Courthouse South
Los Angeles, California
DUKES, ROBERT A.
MEEKA, PETER J.
SHP CAPITAL LP
BOUZANE JOHN E. LAW OFFICES OF
Court documents are not available for this case.
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 CreditorRead MoreRead Less
Order (DETERMINING CLAIM OF EXEMPTION ) Filed by Judgment DebtorRead MoreRead Less
Claim of Exemption Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Cost Bill after Judgmt(685.070ccp) Filed by Judgment CreditorRead MoreRead Less
Writ-Other (ISSUED TO LA CO ) Filed by Judgment CreditorRead MoreRead Less
Abstract of Judgment Filed by Judgment CreditorRead MoreRead Less
Default Judgment Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Request for Court Judgment-Default Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Declaration (OF PAMELA OZELL ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Dismissal of Does (WITH PREJUDICE ONLY AS TO DOES ) Filed by Judgment CreditorRead MoreRead Less
Filed Writ of Exec (WRIT ISSUED 4/8/10 TO LA CO FILED AND RETURNED: FULLY SATISFIED ) Filed by Judgment CreditorRead MoreRead Less
Appl for Writ of Execution & Order (FOR POSSESSION ONLY ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Application - misc (APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT FOR RESTITUTION OF PREMISES ONLY ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Default Judgment (CLERK'S JUDGMENT- UD *POSSESSION ONLY* *COURT JUDGMENT SENT TO DEPT O WITH FILE* ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Writ-Other (FOR POSSESSION ONLY ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Default Entered (AND CLERK'S JUDGMENT *POSSESSION ONLY* **COURT JUDGMENT SENT TO DEPT O W/ FILE ON 9/23/11** ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl (ALL UNKNOWN OCCUPANTS ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Notice-Case Management Conference Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Complaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
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.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases