Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Young v. Byars, Date: 2022-08-15 Tentative Ruling
Plaintiffs seek an order “vacating the ruling entered on April 12, 2022, on the grounds that [assignee Collect Co.] failed to show Plaintiffs’ bad faith and lacking of merit [sic], or in the alternative for an order vacating the ruling on the grounds that this court is lacking jurisdiction to rule on [the motion by assignee Collect Co. for attorneys’ fees], along with the new evidence that attorney Andrew Phan fraudulently filed the AFFIDAVIT on March 15, 2021 by abusing the Youngs’ name for the filing.”
The order that the plaintiffs seek to vacate granted a motion by assignee Collect Co. for an order awarding $4,913.00 in attorneys’ fees and $210.00 in costs against plaintiffs to reimburse Collect Co. in opposing three ex parte applications and two combined noticed motions filed by the plaintiff and judgment creditors that sought to unwind the assignment. In granting the motion, the Court relied on the provision in the agreement that provided that the prevailing party could recover its attorneys’ fees and costs on any legal proceeding between the parties arising out of the agreement. The Court also indicated that the fees and cost could also be awarded under Code Civ. Proc. § 1285.
Plaintiffs give no legal authority for the relief sought other than making a claim that the agreement between the parties was entered by them as the result of trickery, fraud, and mistake. But Plaintiffs fail to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. The admit they executed the assignment of the judgment to Collect Co., and had their signatures notarized. That they failed to read or fully understand the assignment before signing does not render it invalid.
Collect Co. argues in its opposition that this is motion for reconsideration of the prior order and that plaintiffs have not made the showing for such reconsideration under Code Civ. Proc. § 1008. This argument is meritorious.
Section 1008 provides authority for the Court to reconsider a motion or application and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. Subdivision (a) of section 1008 requires the party “making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” Subdivision (e) provides that section 1008 “specifies the court's jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final.” Subdivision (e) adds that “[n]o application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.”
Plaintiffs have not made the required showing for the reconsideration of the Court’s order of April 12, 2022. Specifically, they have not shown that there are “new or different facts, circumstances, or law” for the Court to change its ruling. The motion that the Court granted on 4-12-22 related to the agreement between the parties as well as the assignment and it contained a provision for the award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in an action to enforce the agreement. The Court indicated that it could base its award of fees on Code Civ. Proc. § 128.5
The motion of plaintiffs William and Jennifer Young for an order vacating the order of April 12, 2022 is DENIED in its entirety.
The motion of plaintiffs William and Jennifer Young for an order: (1) quashing “costs after judgment”; (2) striking all liens on cases where no final judgment has been rendered and striking the lien on the plaintiffs’ real property; (3) and imposing monetary sanctions against responding party for fraudulent filings is DENIED to the extent that it is not moot.
The motion is moot with the exception of the request for sanctions under Code Civ. Proc. § 128.5 because responding assignee Collect Co. filed a notice of satisfaction of judgment on August 4, 2022 that indicated that it had received the full amount of attorneys’ fees it had been awarded on April 12, 2022. (See ROA 361).
It also filed a notice on August 4, 2022 that it was withdrawing the memos of costs after judgment that it filed on May 10, 2022 (ROA 289) and May 23, 2022 (ROA 313). (See ROA 363.)
To the extent that the motion seeks sanctions under Code Civ. Proc. § 128.5, subdivision (a) of that section states that “[a] trial court may order a party, the party's attorney, or both, to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's 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.” Plaintiffs have not shown that Collect Co. engaged in bad faith actions or tactics simply because it was trying to collect on the award of attorneys’ fees granted on April 12, 2022. In addition, plaintiffs are self-represented and cannot recover sanctions to reimburse them for attorneys’ fees.
Collect Co. to give notice of these rulings.