The Salvation Army Anaheim Center of Hope Apartments, L.P. vs. Miscik

Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR C61 HON. JENNIFER MCCARTNEY

Date: 5/13/2026 Courtroom Rules and Notices

The Court will continue to upload tentative rulings as they are completed. Please be sure to keep checking until 8:30 AM on the day of your hearing.

Written responses, oppositions, or filings that are filed later than 12:15 PM the day before the hearing on the motion will go on second call by the Court for the Court to have an opportunity to review any lastminute filings. If a party files a written response, opposition, or any filing after 12:15 PM on the day before the hearing, the party must ensure they are available for the court's afternoon calendar the day of the hearing.

Submitting on tentative rulings: If all counsel intend to submit on the tentative ruling and do not desire oral argument, please advise the Courtroom Clerk or Courtroom Attendant by calling (657) 622-5261 – both counsel need to state they are submitting on the tentative. Please do not call the Department unless all parties submit to the tentative ruling. If all sides submit on the tentative ruling and so advise the Court, the tentative ruling shall become the Court’s final ruling, and the prevailing party shall give notice of the ruling and prepare an order for the Court’s signature if appropriate under Cal. R. Ct. 3.1312.

Non-appearances: If nobody appears for the hearing and the Court has not been notified that all parties submit on the tentative ruling, the Court shall determine whether the matter is taken off calendar or the tentative ruling becomes the final ruling. The Court also might make a different order at the hearing. (Lewis v. Fletcher Jones Motor Cars, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 436, 442, fn. 1.)

# Case Name Tentative 11 30-2025-01532397 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside The Salvation Army Default Judgment (ROA 25), Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 37), and Plaintiff’s Anaheim Center of Declaration in Support of Opposition (ROA 35). Hope Apartments, L.P. vs. Miscik California Evidence Code Section 647 establishes a rebuttable presumption that a proof of service signed by a registered process server is true. It shifts the burden of proving lack of service to the defendant, rather than requiring the plaintiff to prove proper service.

Here, registered process server Marcos Mejia #6661, under penalty of perjury, declared that he personally served the defendant, April Miscik, on December 13, 2025, at 9:33 AM. Plaintiff further provides geolocation data indicating that on December 13, 2025, at 9:33 AM PST, the registered process server was at the premises. Defendant has provided no evidence to rebut the presumption under Evidence Code section 647 other than her own self-serving statements that she was not personally served.

Furthermore, the defendant fails to provide the Court with anything to support the claim under California Code of Civil Procedure §1161.3(a)(2) documentation evidencing abuse or violence against the tenant. When a

person is receiving housing assistance, they must provide documentation to establish their portion of the payment, which is determined by the Orange County Housing Authority here, not the Landlord. After Ms. Miscik married and moved into the premises, J.E.C., she acknowledged signing an updated lease in which the Orange County Housing Authority adjusted her rent obligation under her lease agreement and her approval for the program. There is no evidence before this Court that Ms. Miscik is under conservatorship or unable to make decisions for herself when she entered into the new lease and received the new amount, she was obligated to pay.

The Court DENIES the Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment.

The Court orders the Plaintiff to give notice of the Court’s ruling.

12 30-2026-01560537 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion for Summary 22702 Pacific Park Judgment (ROA 37), Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 50), Request for Judicial Drive, L.P. vs. Romeo Notice (ROA 52), and Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 54).

The Court takes Judicial Notice of the US House Committee on Financial Services Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the CARES Act, dated April 1, 2020.

Defendant’s counsel argues that 15 USC §9058(c) should be read alone and to mean that the CARES Act imposes a permanent 30-day notice requirement for all types of evictions. Whereas Plaintiff’s counsel argues that subsection (c) should be read in conjunction with subsection (b)(1)’s limitation to non- payment of rent. Neither Plaintiff’s counsel nor Defendant’s counsel cites to any California case law that decides this issue. Defendant’s counsel cites non- binding out-of-state cases that have reviewed this same issue. The language of 15 USC §9058(b) specifically discusses that a lessor of a covered dwelling may not initiate a filing for unlawful detainer due to non-payment of rent or other fees/charges. In subsection (c), in discussing notice requirements (c)(2) references back to subsection (b).

The Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant failed to establish that the Plaintiff’s failure to serve a 30-day Notice to Vacate on a case involving nuisance or illegal activity is a violation of the CARES Act and that the Plaintiff was required to do so under 15 USC §9058.

13 30-2026-01553193 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for Newport Bluffs LLC (1) Emergency Hearing (2) Order Preventing Entry by Default against Betty vs. Lim Lim (3) Continuance of April 27, 2026 Trial Date (ROA 30), Declaration of Ron Nechemia (ROA 21), Declaration of Betty Lim (ROA 22) and the Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment (ROA 49).

The Court takes Judicial Notice of Proof of Service regarding Ron Nechemia (ROA 15), Proof of Service regarding Betty Lim (ROA 13), Request for Entry of Default (ROA 18), and Ron Nechemia’s Answer to the Complaint (ROA 7).