LVNV Funding LLC vs Gloria Maceda

While correctly pointing out that PoloDonkey and Seidler's cited authorities relate only to cases where the stay took place within a single action, Plaintiffs' argument that the Court cannot stay a related case is without merit. There is no authority that prevents the Court from exercising both statutory authorities and its own inherent powers to stay this proceeding if it would accommodate the ends of justice. "Even when the statutes do not call for an automatic stay on appeal, the trial and appellate Courts both have the power to issue discretionary stays." (Daly v. San Bernardino County Bd. of Supervisors (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1030, 1039.)

However, even though it has the power to do so, the Court does not find that it would accommodate the ends of justice to stay this action pending the appeal in the related case. As the Court found previously, there is limited overlap between this action and the related action. This action has been pending for just short of two years and there is no compelling reason that it should be stayed pending the appeal in the related case. PoloDonkey and Seidler's argument that, alternatively, this case should be stayed because Sandoval's cause of action for coastal action violations is not ripe, has been previously addressed and is unsupported by any persuasive legal authority. The motion to stay action will be denied.

Tentative Ruling: LVNV Funding LLC vs Gloria Maceda Tentative Ruling: LVNV Funding LLC vs Gloria Maceda Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 07/08/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Vacate Tentative Ruling Attorney for Plaintiff: Donald Sherrill Defendant is self-represented.

RULING On October 30, 2025, Plaintiff LVNV Funding LLC filed a motion to vacate dismissal and enter judgment under terms of a stipulated settlement [balance at charge--off was $2,970.88.] No opposition or other response was filed, and the Court granted the motion on January 14, 2026, as follows: "For all reasons discussed herein, the motion to vacate dismissal and enter judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is granted in the amount of $1,980.00. Any costs to be recovered shall be pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700. Plaintiff shall prepare and file a new order and new judgment that omits the claimed Court costs."

No order and new judgment were submitted pursuant to the Court's order of January 14, 2026. Instead, inexplicably, on April 17, 2026, Plaintiff filed this motion seeking the same relief as the October 30, 2025, motion (except, this motion seeks a different sum for the judgment than is supported by the accompanying declaration, apparently because of a typo in the text of the motion). Because the Court has already granted the motion to vacate the dismissal and to enter judgment, the motion is superfluous and constitutes an improper motion for reconsideration. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1008, subd. (a).) The motion is denied on those grounds. (See id., subd. (e).)

Nevertheless, the proposed order and judgment submitted with the April 17, 2026, motion is sufficient to comply with the Court's order of January 14, 2026. The Court will sign the new proposed order and enter the new proposed judgment based upon the Court's disposition in its order of January 14, 2026.

Tentative Ruling: Santa Barbara County Coalition for Responsible Cannabis, et al., v. Ceres