DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24618034·sf·Civil·Debt Collection
Hearing 2 months agoOFF CALENDAR

LVNV FUNDING LLC VS. VINCENT FUQUA ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Vacate Judgment, Quash Service, And Stop Wage Garnishment

Hearing date
Jun 17, 2026
Department
302
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Quash rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffLVNV FUNDING LLC
DefendantVINCENT FUQUA

Ruling

Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Wednesday, June 17, 2026, Line 3. Defendant Vincent Fuqua's Motion To Vacate Judgment, Quash Service, And Stop Wage Garnishment is OFF CALENDAR.

The papers filed and served in support of a motion must include the motion, a notice of motion and a memorandum of points and authorities. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1112(a).) The requirements for the memorandum of points and authorities are set out in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113. They are fairly extensive, and the memorandum is essential to the court's adjudication. Here, Defendant did not file or serve a memorandum of points and authorities. On this basis, the motion is ordered off calendar.

Defendant, again, has failed to demonstrate he served Plaintiff. Gavin Morrow-Hall declares he personally served Plaintiff at counsel's post office box. Morrow-Hall declared in San Francisco that he personally served counsel at their post office box at an undisclosed address in Chicago. "Personal service" means that someone-not the party-gave the court papers to the other person in person. Assuming service on counsel personally is appropriate, the court finds it improbable that two attorneys would be personally available at the firms post office box. Morrow-Hall provides no identifying information regarding the location of service or the people served. On this record, Plaintiff has not carried his burden to demonstrate proper service of his motion.

"While a party may choose to act as his or her own attorney [s]uch a party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration that other litigants or attorneys." (ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 198, 208.)

Moving Party must prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the time set for hearing.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JMQ) | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share