DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23LCP-0670·slo·Civil·Collection
Hearing about 2 months agoCONTINUED

Velocity Investments LLC v. Othon

Motion to Enter Judgment Pursuant to CCP 664.6

Hearing date
Jul 7, 2026
Department
P2
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Oct 20, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Monetary amounts referenced

$1,394.94

Parties

PlaintiffVelocity Investments, LLC
DefendantAshley Othon

Ruling

Velocity Investments LLC v. Othon, 23LCP-0670

Hearing: Motion to Enter Judgment Pursuant to CCP 664.6

Date: July 7, 2026

Velocity Investments, LLC filed this collection action against Ashley Othon on December 4, 2023, seeking $1,394.94 in damages. Defendant was personally served on July 2, 2024.

The parties settled and on August 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of conditional settlement.

Plaintiff declares that Defendant has defaulted on their agreement and moves for an order entering judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The parties’ settlement agreement provides that if Defendant defaults, Plaintiff may file a noticed motion for entry of judgment. (Schlick Decl., Ex. 1, ¶ 5.)

No opposition is on file. However, the proof of service for the motion and supporting documents was filed concurrently with the motion, meaning that the notice of motion was served without the hearing information which is added by the Clerk’s Office at the time of filing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(b); Local Rule 7.05.1.) Plaintiff failed to file proof that a notice containing the date and time of the hearing was ever served on the other parties in this action. Notice is therefore deficient.

Hearing on the motion is continued to October 20, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department P2. Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date, and file proof of service of the notice of hearing with the court at least two weeks prior to the hearing date.

1

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