Judge Alison Mackenzie, Case Number: 23STCP04638, Date: 2024-05-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCP04638, Date: 2024-05-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP04638 Hearing Date: May 21, 2024 Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Defendants’ (1) Notice Of Motion To Stay Enforcement Of The Judgment, (2) Notice Of Motion To Vacate The California Judgment On Sister State Judgment. Application To Appear Pro Hac Vice As Counsel For Defendants Darvin Ham And Deneitra Ham.

BACKGROUND

TITUS DUNCAN and EARL COLEMAN (“Plaintiffs”) filed an application for entry of judgment on sister-state judgment against DARVIN HAM and DENEITRA HAM (“Defendants”).

Now, Defendants bring a motion requesting an order staying enforcement of the current Judgment on Sister-State Judgment and vacating it. Also, they have filed an application for a defense attorney to appear pro hac vice. Plaintiffs oppose the motion but not the pro hac vice application. The Court considers the motion and application in this tentative ruling.

LEGAL STANDARD

A party seeking to set aside the sister-state judgment has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence entitlement to the relief. Tsakos Shipping & Trading v. Juniper Garden Town Homes (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 74, 88. “The ruling on a motion to set aside a judgment rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be set aside on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion appears.” Ibid., pp. 88-89.

“Under the full faith and credit clause (U.S. Const., art. IV, § 1), ‘a judgment entered by one state must be recognized by another state if the state of rendition had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter and all interested parties were given reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard.’” Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Renda (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 14, 19. Sister-state judgments are entitled full faith and credit as to questions of jurisdiction when the second court's inquiry discloses that the issues were fully and fairly litigated and finally decided. Bank of Am. v. Jennett (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 104, 117.

ANALYSIS

Motion to Stay and Vacate

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ application to domesticate the sister-state judgment is legally deficient because it is not properly authenticated and is not a judgment but rather a writ of fieri facias. An authenticated copy of the sister state judgment suffices if there are no meaningful defects. Cap. Tr., Inc. v. Tri-Nat'l Dev. Corp. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 824, 831, fn. 4. Here, the application for sister-state judgment attached the writ of fieri facias, which was recorded by the recorded by the Clerk of Court in Fulton County, Georgia. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court here in Los Angeles properly entered the sister-state judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1710.25. Arguably, as an issue of first impression, a judgment having a Writ of Fieri Facias suffices as statutorily required authentication. See opposition, 5:11-15. The Court therefore concludes that the clerk’s ministerial act of entering the sister-state judgment was appropriate and rejects Defendants’ first argument against enforcement of the sister-state judgment.

Defendants next contend that this Court should vacate the sister-state judgment under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1710.40(a) because the underlying judgment in Georgia violates their due process rights. Defendants contend that they never received notice of the trial date and entry of default in the Georgia case and thus the resulting sister-state judgment against them is legally deficient. Defendants concede in their reply that the Georgia court recently denied their motion to set aside and vacate the Georgia judgment but note that they have now filed an appeal of that ruling.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 1710.40(a) provides that a sister-state judgment “may be vacated on any ground which would be a defense to an action in this state on the sister-state judgment . . . .” Potential defenses to enforcement of a sister-state judgment include the judgment is not enforceable in the state rendered. Fidelity Creditor Serv. v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 202-203. While Defendants present evidence supporting their position that they did not receive proper notice of the trial and entry of default judgment in the underlying Georgia case, Plaintiffs also present evidence supporting the opposite position, i.e., that Defendants’ prior counsel gave them notice of the trial. Also, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental declaration showing that the Georgia court denied Defendants’ motion for relief that was made on similar grounds as the instant motion. See Supplemental Opposing Declaration, Exhibits 1 (Final Order and Judgment), p. 4, and 2 (Order) p. 5. Based on this record, the Court concludes that Defendants have not met their burden of establishing grounds for the sister-state judgment to be vacated.

Defendants alternatively seek an order staying enforcement of the sister-state judgment. Court of Civil Procedure Section 1710.50 requires the court to stay enforcement of a sister-state judgment if an appeal from the sister-state judgment is pending, and such stay should remain in place “until the proceedings on appeal have been concluded.” Code Civ. Proc., §1710.50(a)(1). Defendants have attached a copy of their notice of appeal of the Georgia court’s order denying their motion to vacate and set aside the judgment. The Court will therefore stay enforcement of the sister-state judgment pending the outcome of that appeal.

Motion To Appear Pro Hac Vice

Attorney William Poplin, Jr., residing in Atlanta, Georgia, applies for an order admitting him as counsel pro hac vice on behalf of Defendants, based on payment of the $50.00 fee to the State Bar and compliance with rule 9.40 of the California Rules of Court.

A judge’s determination of whether to grant an application to appear pro hac vice is evaluated under the abuse-of-discretion standard. E.g., Sheller v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1697, 1713.

The Court finds that the applicant complied with California Rules of Court, rule 9.40, including the applicant’s declaration addressing the rule elements.

Hence, the Court grants the application.

CONCLUSION

The motion is denied with respect to the request to vacate the sister-state judgment but granted as to staying sister-state judgment enforcement pending the appeal.

The application to appear pro hac vice is granted.

The Court sets a status conference re appeal and pro hac vice application for 5/21/2025, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 55.