| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
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
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
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).