Judge Blaine K. Bowman, Case Number: 37-2023-00051707-CU-EN-CTL, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2023-00051707-CU-EN-CTL, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 04, 2024

04/05/2024 08:30:00 AM C-74 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Enforcement Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00051707-CU-EN-CTL BANKERS HEALTHCARE GROUP LLC VS PEMBERTON [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Jason Ross Pemberton's motion to vacate judgment is DENIED for failure to provide a proof of service showing service of this motion on Plaintiff Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC. CCP § 1710.40(b); CCP § 1005(b).

Defendant's motion is also DENIED on the merits. Pursuant to CCP § 1710.40: (a) A judgment entered pursuant to this chapter [Sister State Money Judgments] may be vacated on any ground which would be a defense to an action in this state on the sister state judgment . . . .

Brinker v. Superior Court (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1296 explains, Article IV, section 1 of the United States Constitution provides that 'full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.' The Federal Judicial Code further provides, 'Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof ... shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.' (28 U.S.C. § 1738.) 'It has long been the law that 'the judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity, and effect in every other court in the United States, which it had in the state where it was pronounced.' ' (Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co. (1980) 448 U.S. 261, 270 [65 L.Ed.2d 757, 766, 100 S.Ct. 2647].) 'The rare exceptions to the application of the full faith and credit clause arise only when there is a violation of some fundamental state public policy .... '[T]here is no precedent for an exception in the case of a money judgment in a civil suit.' ' (Silbrico Corp. v. Raanan (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 202, 208 [216 Cal.Rptr. 201], citing United Bank of Denver v. K & Y Trucking Co. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 217, 222 [195 Cal.Rptr. 49].) Therefore, under California law, the judgment of a sister state must be given full faith and credit if that sister state had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, and all interested parties were given reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard. (World Wide Imports, Inc. v. Bartel (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1010 [193 Cal.Rptr. 830].) Brinker, 235 Cal.App.3d at 1299–1300.

Defendant fails to identify any ground which would be a defense to an action in California as a defense to the judgment in the State of New York. Defendant also fails to submit any evidence to support a finding that the court in New York lacked jurisdiction in the underlying matter or that Defendant was not Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3100914 7 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: BANKERS HEALTHCARE GROUP LLC VS PEMBERTON [IMAGED] 37-2023-00051707-CU-EN-CTL given reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard in the underlying matter. Absent such evidence there is no basis for the findings required under CCP § 1710.40(a) to vacate the judgment.

Although Defendant argues that Defendant 'was completely unaware of any formal or final judgment made against me until a few days after this time [January 5, 2024]' Defendant fails to submit any evidence to support this argument. Moreover, Plaintiff submits evidence showing service of the Summons and Verified Complaint in the New York case on Defendant. Plaintiff also submits evidence showing service of the Judgment in the New York case on Defendant and showing service of the Notice of Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment and Judgment Based on Sister State Judgment on Defendant in this case.

In these circumstances, Defendant fails to establish grounds for vacating the judgment.

If this tentative ruling is confirmed the Minute Order will be the final order of the court and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3100914 7