Directv Inc v. Guadalupe Arambula et al

Filing 24

RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT by Clerk of Court, in favor of Directv Inc against Guadalupe Arambula. Total Judgment for $217,800.00, Credits after Judgment of $78,755.41, Subtotal of $139,044.59, Interest after Judgment of $43,610.68, Total Renewed Judgment of $182,655.27. Related to: Default Judgment, Permanent Injunction 14 , APPLICATION for Renewal of Judgment 23 . (bm)

Download PDF
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Michael E. Williams (Bar No. 181299) 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 Issued Ntc of Renewal to Plaintiff Attorneys for Plaintiff DIRECTV, LLC f/k/a DIRECTV, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DIRECTV, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, vs. CASE NO. CV 04-551-ABC (RMCx) RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT Trial Date: None Set GUADALUPE ARAMBULA, AND JOHN DOES 1 -10, Defendant. 00235.20319/5929660.1 RENEWED JUDGMENT (PROPOSED) 1 Pursuant to Rule 69(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Article 2 of the 2 California Code of Civil Procedure, the above named Plaintiff, by its attorney, applies for renewal 3 of judgment against Defendant GUADALUPE ARAMBULA. 4 The original judgment was entered on June 2, 2004. A true and correct copy is attached as 5 Exhibit “1”. 6 The judgment has not been previously renewed. 7 Total Judgment: $217,800.00 8 Credits after Judgment: $ 78,755.41 9 Subtotal: $139,044.59 10 Interest after Judgment: $ 43,610.68 11 Total Renewed Judgment: $182,655.27 12 Renewed Judgment to accrue interest at the legal rate until paid. 13 14 DATED: May 27, 2014 15 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 16 By /s/ Michael Williams Michael E. Williams Attorneys for Plaintiff 17 18 19 20 21 DATED: May 27, 2014 By By DEPUTY CLERK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 00235.20319/5929660.1 -2RENEWED JUDGMENT (PROPOSED) EXHIBIT 1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?