24CV429893 Wells Fargo Bank, Case settled; motion off calendar.N.a. vs ElizabethDeleo6-7 23CV426974 Dale Council vs These motions will be heard on July 3, 2025 at 9 a.m. in Department 6.Zanker RaddResourceManagement, Ltd. etal8 -9 22CV404372 LUM GURUNG et al These motions will be heard on July 3, 2025 at 9 a.m. in Department 6.vs GARLIC FARMTRUCK CENTER,LLC et al

ABSOLUTERESOLUTIONS MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULTCVSW2405056 INVESTMENTS, LLC, VS JUDGMENTHOUSTONTentative Ruling: Defendant has filed a motion to set aside the default, however, nodefault judgment has been entered in this case. The Plaintiff submitted a default judgmenton or about December 4, 2024. On January 27, 2025, the court rejected the defaultjudgment.Since the default judgment has not been entered, this motion is moot.

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THEONEMAIN FINANCIAL PLEADINGS ON COMPLAINT FORGROUP, LLC AS SERVICER COLLECTIONS CRC 3.740 (OVERFOR (ASF) WILMINGTON $10,000 DOES NOT EXCEED $35,000)TRUST, N.A., AS ISSUER OF ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLCCVMV2408708LOAN TRUSTEE FOR AS SERVICER FOR (ASF)ONEMAIN FINANCIAL WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., ASISSUANCE TRUST 2020-2 ISSUER LOAN TRUSTEE FORvs WOODSON ONEMAIN FINANCIAL ISSUANCETRUST 2020-2Tentative Ruling:Granted. Judgment is to enter in the amount of 412,551.71.

Case Number: 25SMCV00368 Hearing Date: July 3, 2025 Dept: 207 TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT 207 HEARING DATE July 3, 2025 CASE NUMBER 25SMCV00368 MOTION Convert Dismissal Without Prejudice to Dismissal With Prejudice, or in the Alternative, Sanctions MOVING PARTY Defendant Golpar Nourkhah OPPOSING PARTY (none) MOTION This case arises from a dispute concerning an alleged debt. On January 24, 2025, Plaintiff LVNV Funding LLC (Plaintiff) filed suit against Defendant Golpar Nourkhah (Defendant) and Does 1 through 10, alleging a single cause of action for breach of contract. On May 19, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to deem requests for admission admitted. On May 21, 2025, Defendant filed a request for dismissal of the entire action without prejudice, which the Court granted on May 22. Defendant now moves to convert the dismissal without prejudice to dismissal with prejudice, or, in the alternative, sanctions and costs. The motion is unopposed. ANALYSIS [A]s a general rule, a voluntary dismissal of an action deprives the court of both subject matter and personal jurisdiction in that case. Based on this general rule, most orders entered after the dismissal are void and have no effect. (See Manhan v. Gallagher (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 504, 509 [cleaned up]; see also Paniagua v. Orange County Fire Authority (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 83, 89 [it is a well-settled proposition of law that where the plaintiff has filed a voluntary dismissal of an action . . ., the court is without jurisdiction to act further [citations], and any subsequent orders of the court are simply void].) Further, [p]ursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivisions (b) and (c), plaintiffs have the right to voluntarily dismiss an entire action, or causes of action within a pleading, before the commencement of trial. A request for a dismissal is usually effective upon filing, and no other action by the clerk or the court is required. Neither the clerk nor the trial court has any discretion in the matter. Upon the proper filing of a request to voluntarily dismiss a matter, the trial court loses jurisdiction to act in the case, except for the limited purpose of awarding costs and statutory attorney fees. All subsequent proceeding are void. (Law Offices of Andrew L. Ellis v. Yang (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 869, 876 [cleaned up].) Here, based upon Plaintiffs request, the Court entered a dismissal of the entire action without prejudice on May 22, 2025. Consequently, the Court is without authority to act on Defendants motion. Notwithstanding, Defendant moves to convert the dismissal to dismissal with prejudice, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5, 128.7, and 1032 on the grounds that Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case to avoid adverse rulings on Defendants pending discovery motions, thereby abusing the litigation process and causing unnecessary expense. Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 provides, A trial court may order a party, the partys attorney, or both, to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorneys fees, incurred by another party as a result of actions or tactics, made in bad faith, that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. If the alleged action or tactic is the making or opposing of a written motion or the filing and service of a complaint, cross-complaint, answer, or other responsive pleading that can be withdrawn or appropriately corrected, a notice of motion shall be served as provided in Section 1010, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court, unless 21 days after service of the motion or any other period as the court may prescribe, the challenged action or tactic is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. (Ibid.) Section 128.7 provides that all pleadings, petitions, and notices of motion must be signed, certifying, among other things, that it is not being filed for an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (b).) Again, notice of a motion pursuant to section 128.7 must be presented 21 days prior to filing. Section 1032 provides that a prevailing party in any action is entitled to recover their costs. Procedurally, Defendant has not demonstrated compliance with the 21-day safe harbor provision. Indeed, the emails attached to Defendants motion demonstrate the motion was served on May 23, the same day the motion was filed. Substantively, Defendant has not demonstrated that Plaintiff abused the litigation process, or filed the lawsuit for purposes of harassment, increasing unnecessary expense, or causing unnecessary delay. There is nothing inherently improper about dismissing a lawsuit instead of engaging in discovery motion practice. Moreover, Defendant has not demonstrated that the remedy sought, of converting dismissal without prejudice to dismissal with prejudice, is appropriate or available under Sections 128.5, 128.7 or 1032. CONCLUSION Therefore, because the Court lacks jurisdiction to act upon Defendants motion, the Court denies the motion. The Clerk of the Court shall provide notice of the Courts ruling. DATED: July 3, 2025 ___________________________ Michael E. Whitaker Judge of the Superior Court

MOTION FOR ORDER TO DEEMJPMORGAN CHASECVME2403593 MATTERS ADMITTED MOTION FORBANK N.A. VS FIELDSORDER DEEMING RFAS ADMITTEDTentative Ruling: Matter continued to August 14, 2025, due to a medical reason ofdefendant, Mr. Fields. August 14, 2025 – 8:00 a.m., Dept. M205, Menifee JusticeCenter. The court will post a tentative ruling by 3 p.m. the day before. Any request fororal argument will be heard on August 14, 2025. All parties have permission to appearremotely on August 14, 2025.

PERSOLVE LEGAL MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT BYCVRI2104635GROUP, LLP VS FUENTES GUIDO FUENTESTentative Ruling: The Court DENIES Defendant Fuentes’ Motion to Vacate the March 2023Judgment.

Case Number: 25PSCV00899 Hearing Date: July 21, 2025 Dept: H American Express National Bank v. Tri, Case No. 25PSCV00899 ORDER ON DEFAULT JUDGMENT APPLICATION Plaintiff American Express National Banks Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Background This is a credit card collections case. On March 13, 2025, Plaintiff American Express National Bank (Plaintiff) filed a complaint, asserting two causes of action for breach of contract against Henry Tri (Defendant) and Does 1-10. On June 3, 2025, Defendants default was entered. A Case Management Conference is set for July 21, 2025. Discussion Plaintiffs Application for Default Judgment is denied without prejudice. The following defects are noted: 1. Plaintiffs complaint contains two causes of action for Breach of Contract: the first pertains to Defendants credit card account ending in -1008 and the second pertains to Defendants credit card account ending in -4007. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owes $24,892.83 as to the account ending in -1008, with an additional $32,074.04 owing as to the account ending in -4007, for a total of $56,966.87. The Declaration of Gabriel J. Montano addresses the account ending in -1008 only. No declaration has been provided regarding the account ending in -4007. 2. Brianna Elmassians declaration fails to attach the referenced Exhibit A. 3. It is unclear to the Court when Defendant last made a payment on each account and when the respective accounts were charged off. The Court directs Plaintiff to provide this information. Accordingly, the application is denied without prejudice, and Plaintiff is directed to submit a revised and complete default judgment application. Any subsequent default prove-up application must be full and complete, in and of itself. The Court will not entertain piecemeal submissions.

24CV443447 U.S. Bank National Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. See line 5 for completeAssociation vs ruling. Court will prepare formal order.Martha G Cardenas