DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV-02752·merced·Civil·Responsive Pleading
Hearing 10 days agoAppearance required.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC vs. Juan Villegas

Ex Parte Application for Order Extending Time to File Responsive Pleading

Hearing date
Aug 14, 2026
Department
9
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Ex Parte Application rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffPortfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
DefendantJuan Villegas

Ruling

627 W. 21st Street, Merced

Friday, August 14, 2026 1:15 p.m.

The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4240 to notify the court of your intent to appear.

2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying CourtCall (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court.

Case No. Title / Description

25CV-06626 [Parties’ names withheld pursuant to CCP § 1161.2(a)(1)]

Ex Parte Application for Entry of Judgment

Plaintiff’s ex parte application for entry of stipulated judgment is GRANTED. It is undisputed that Defendants defaulted under the payment terms of the settlement agreement between the parties. The Court will sign the proposed order and proposed judgment submitted by Plaintiff.

The court hearing scheduled for April 1, 2027, is vacated.

25CV-02752 Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC vs. Juan Villegas

Ex Parte Application for Order Extending Time to File Responsive Pleading

Appearance required.

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