LVNV Funding LLC v. Gomez

Plaintiff to give notice of this ruling which shall include notice to Weyer, Crelling & Custer.

6. Balboa Capital Corp. v. Sasquatch Services LLC 25-1469145 The motion to enforce settlement filed by plaintiff Balboa Capital Corporation (Plaintiff) is CONTINUED TO JULY 30, 2026, AT 1:30 P.M. IN DEPARTMENT C20.

Plaintiff moves for an order to enforce the settlement between Plaintiff and defendants Sasquatch Services LLC and Nicholas Albert Fetterhoff (collectively, Defendants) and for entry of judgment thereon.

There is no proof of service filed showing Defendants’ counsel, Tanner Martin, Esq., was served with this motion. Plaintiff filed a proof of service which shows only direct service on Defendants. According to the Court’s records, Defendants are represented by Mr. Martin.

The motion is therefore CONTINUED as stated above.

Plaintiff is ordered to file a proof of service showing Defendants’ counsel was properly and timely served with the motion. Said proof of service shall be filed at least 5 court days prior to the hearing.

Counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice.

7. LVNV Funding LLC v. Gomez 21-1219223

The motion to enforce settlement filed by plaintiff LVNV Funding LLC (Plaintiff) is CONTINUED TO JULY 30, 2026, AT 1:30 P.M. IN DEPARTMENT C20.

There is no proof of service filed showing defendant Jasmine Gomez (Defendant) was served with this motion.

The motion is therefore CONTINUED as stated above.

Plaintiff is ordered to file a proof of service showing Defendant was properly and timely served with the motion. Said proof of service shall be filed at least 5 court days prior to the hearing.

Counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice.

8. Tapia v. The Regents of the University of California 24-1446222 Before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration and Relief from Terminating Sanctions, etc., filed on 3/17/26 by Plaintiff Melissa Tapia in her individual capacity and in her capacity as decedent Luis Recinos’ successor-in-interest (“Plaintiff”).

The Motion is effectively a motion for relief under C.C.P. § 473(b), based upon an attorney declaration of fault regarding discovery violations that resulted in terminating sanctions. In that context, the application for mandatory relief would be in proper form if it demonstrated that verified discovery responses had been served, for all of the outstanding discovery. (See Rodriguez v. Brill (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 715, 729.) But Plaintiff’s motion does not comply, as Plaintiff’s counsel here has asserted only that compliance was anticipated. (ROA 225, Smith Decl., ¶ 19.) The Motion is therefore DENIED.