Her identity was stolen in 2022, and she thought she had cleaned it up. She filed a police report, enrolled in Aura, worked through every fraudulent account she could find, and watched her credit recover over the following year. By the time things settled down, it felt like the worst of it was behind her.
Then she applied for a new apartment and failed the background check. That’s when she found out someone had used her name to sign a lease in July 2022, been evicted a few months later, and been named in a lawsuit by the apartment management company. The case went to trial. No one appeared. The court records show service was made at the fraudulent apartment address, not at any real location connected to her. The phone number and email listed in the file are not hers. The apartment was reportedly abandoned in 2025. She was never contacted, never served, and had no idea any of this existed until a landlord rejected her application.
💸 Take Back Control of Your Finances in 2025 💸
Get Instant Access to our free mini course
5 DAYS TO A BETTER BUDGET
What She Is Actually Dealing With
The core problem is a civil judgment that may be attached to her name in court records, even though she had no involvement in the lease, the eviction, or the lawsuit. Because no one appeared at trial, the court likely issued a default judgment against the name on the lease, which is her name. That judgment now exists in public court records and can show up on background checks and tenant screening reports, which is almost certainly what triggered the denial.
This is a different problem from the fraudulent credit accounts she cleared in 2022. Those accounts were handled through the credit bureaus and the banks involved. A civil court judgment is a separate record maintained by the court system and requires a different process to address. Clearing the original fraud did not automatically clear the legal record that followed from it.
The First Priority Is Getting the Court Records
She needs to obtain the complete file from the court where the case was filed. Court records in California are generally accessible to the public, and she can request the full case file either in person at the courthouse or through the court’s online portal if one is available. She is looking for the original complaint, any proof of service filed by the landlord, the judgment or default judgment entered, and any documentation about how service was supposedly made.
The reason this matters is that proper legal service is required for a court to have jurisdiction over a defendant. If service was made at the fraudulent apartment address rather than at a location connected to her, and if she can show she never lived there and had no knowledge of the case, that is the foundation for challenging the judgment. California law allows a defendant to seek relief from a default judgment when they were not properly served, and her situation appears to fit that description.
Setting Aside the Default Judgment
The legal mechanism she needs is called a motion to set aside or vacate a default judgment. In California, this can be filed under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, which allows a court to set aside a judgment when it was entered due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, or under section 473.5, which specifically addresses situations where a party did not receive actual notice of the lawsuit in time to defend themselves.
Her situation appears to align with 473.5. She was never personally served, she had no actual notice of the lawsuit, and the only contact information the court had was fraudulent. Filing this motion requires submitting a declaration explaining her circumstances, supporting documentation including her police report and evidence of the identity theft, and proof that the address used for service was not hers.
She should not attempt to file this motion without the help of an attorney. The process involves specific deadlines, formatting requirements, and court procedures that are difficult to navigate without legal experience. Many legal aid organizations in California assist with identity theft-related court matters at no cost, and some consumer protection attorneys handle these cases on a contingency basis.
Disputing the Background Check Result
Separately from the court process, she should contact the tenant screening company that issued the background check report. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, she has the right to dispute inaccurate information in a consumer report, and a judgment entered against her name through identity theft qualifies as inaccurate information. She should request a copy of the report, identify the specific item that caused the denial, and file a dispute with the screening company in writing.
She should include her police report, the documentation she gathered when resolving the original fraud, and anything she has showing the apartment address was listed as fraudulent on her credit reports. The screening company is required to investigate and respond within 30 days. If the item is not corrected, she can escalate the complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Protecting Herself Going Forward
She should add a statement to her credit files with all three bureaus noting that she has been a victim of identity theft, if she has not already done so. She should also check whether the fraudulent address has been removed from all three reports, since the court records reference the same address she previously had removed. If it has reappeared, it needs to be disputed again with each bureau individually.
Filing an updated report with the FTC through identitytheft.gov is also worth doing at this stage, since the court judgment represents new harm from the original theft that was not part of the initial report. That updated record strengthens her position when disputing accounts, working with attorneys, and challenging inaccurate background check results.
Featured on Cents + Purpose: