Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 20STCV14579, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV14579 Hearing Date: December 13, 2022 Dept: 68
Elijah Simone vs. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No: 20STCV14579
Motion for Mistrial
Judge Mark Mooney is now retired.
Defendant asks the Court to order a mistrial on the basis that the decision process mandated by law was not completed by Judge Mooney at the time of his retirement. The matter was tried to Judge Mooney on August 8-10, 2022. On September 20, 2022 Judge Mooney issued his Statement of Decision. Thereafter the parties made a number of filings related thereto. They are part of the Court’s file. Judge Mooney filed his October 21, 2022 “Final Statement of Decision” while he remained a Superior Court Judge.
The parties disagree on the question of whether the decision process was completed properly or whether a mandatory step had not been completed by Judge Mooney such that a mistrial is mandated by the inability of this bench officer to complete the trial decision process.
On October 21, 2022 Judge Mooney issued what he described as his Final Statement of Decision.
“Final Statement of Decision
The matter was tried to the court from August 8, 2022 through August 10, 2022. The parties submitted simultaneous closing briefs and replies. On September 30, 2022, the court issued its Tentative and Proposed Statement of Decision. The court also requested further briefing and evidence regarding the attorney fees requested by plaintiff. The court has considered the declarations submitted by plaintiff’s council in support of the request for attorney fees as well as defendants objections thereto. Additionally, the court has considered defendant’s objections to the Tentative and Proposed Statement of Decision. The court now issues its Final Statement of Decision.
Defendant’s Objections to the Tentative and Proposed Statement of Decision
Defendant State Farm filed objections to the tentative and proposed statement of decision a statement on October 10, 2022.” (October 21, 2022 Ruling on Submitted Matter, page 1.) (Bold Added.)
“Award
The court finds in favor of plaintiff, and awards damages in the amount of $10,917,481 representing the unpaid amount of the judgment, plus attorney fees as damages in the amount of $684,841.75 for a total award of $11,602,322.80. The court further finds that plaintiff is entitled to 10% interest, which is stipulated to be $4,345,336 to August 8, 2022, and continuing to accrue interest at a rate of $2,991.09 per day until the judgment is paid in full.
The court determines plaintiff to be the prevailing party and is entitled to cost and fees.
Plaintiff is to submit a proposed judgment.” (October 21, 2022 Ruling on Submitted Matter, page 10.)
It is clear that Judge Mooney believed that he had completed all tasks necessary to complete his trial decision. He issued what he believed to be the Final Statement of Decision.
Defendant is asking this Court to find that the actions which Judge Mooney took completing his trial decision were, as a matter of law, deficient such that this Court must declare a mistrial. This Court does not find that a mistrial is appropriate.
“Judge Mooney issued his October 21, 2022 purported Final Statement of Decision when he was no longer the assigned judge on this case.” (Notice of Moiton page 3:12-13.)
Defendant claims that the reassignment of the case to Judge Stern effective October 10, 2022 stripped Judge Mooney of his authority to complete his trial decision. The Court concludes that Judge Mooney did not lose his authority to complete his decision on the trial he had conducted simply because the case was reassigned for all purposes to Judge Stern effective October 10, 2022. Judge Mooney remained a Superior Court Judge through the date of the acts he took in this case. It was proper for him to complete the decision he had under submission prior to the reassignment. Were the Court to accept the argument of Defendant, the effect of the reassignment would have slammed to door on the completion of the decision, even if Judge Mooney had remained a Superior Court Judge, but simply been reassigned to another department of this Court. That outcome does not appear to be justified by the law.
“The purported October 21, 2022 order cannot be treated as a “Final Statement of Decision” because a proposed statement of decision, indeed the first step of a tentative decision, was never issued on the contested issue of the Brandt fees damages. * * * State Farm has never been given the opportunity to object to the statement of decision on the damage issue of Brandt fees or to request a further statement of decision on omitted or ambiguous issues, as it is entitled to under Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1590. It cannot be afforded its procedural rights now that Judge Mooney has retired.” (Notice of Motion page 2:23-25, 3:1-5.)
As noted, Judge Mooney expressly stated that his October 21, 2022 decision was the Final Statement of Decision. Implicit in his ruling is his determination that he has complied with the procedural standards that allow him to render a Final Statement of Decision. This bench officer believes that it would be inappropriate for this bench officer to render judgment on the process employed by another Superior Court Judge in performing his duty under the law to render his trial decision. In essence, this Court is being asked to correct the determination of Judge Mooney and find that contrary to Judge Mooney’s statement that the decision is his Final Statement of Decision, Judge Mooney had erred in believing that he was able to render a Final Statement of Decision based on the procedure he had employed.
“The rule that one superior court judge may not reconsider the previous ruling of another superior court judge applies in a variety of settings, in both criminal and civil cases. (See, e.g., People v. Madrigal (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 791, 795–797, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 498 [ruling of second judge imposing a prison sentence after probation violation hearing is unlawful when first judge had earlier reinstated probation]; Elsea v. Saberi (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 625, 630–631, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 742 [second judge without power to vacate default judgment entered by first judge].)
There are a few exceptions to the general rule that one superior court judge may not vacate or otherwise nullify the order of another. Reversal of a judgment and remand for new trial permits the “renewal and reconsideration of pretrial motions and objections to the admission of evidence. [Citation.]” (People v. Mattson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 826, 849, 268 Cal.Rptr. 802, 789 P.2d 983.) In addition, two narrow lines of cases “appear to authorize one trial judge to reconsider an issue already decided by a colleague: one, where the first judge is unavailable [to decide a motion for reconsideration] [citation], or two, where the first order was made through inadvertence, mistake, or fraud. [Citations.]” (Alberto, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at p. 430, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 526.)” People v. Goodwillie (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 695, 713–714 [54 Cal.Rptr.3d 601, 615–616]
If Judge Mooney erred in performing his duty making the decision which he concluded was the Final Statement of Decision, that claimed error must be corrected by a higher court.
The Court denies the request for judicial notice as not relevant to this Court’s determination.
The Motion for a Mistrial is DENIED.