Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 20STCV14579, Date: 2023-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV14579    Hearing Date: February 8, 2023    Dept: 68

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Elijah Simone’s (Plaintiff) sued State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation (Defendant) for insurance bad faith, based on an Arkansas probate court assignment to him of the insured’s rights, based on an alleged failure to adequately respond to his pre-litigation settlement demand. Plaintiff sought damages in the amount of the underlying judgment plus damages for the fees incurred to obtain contractual benefits as Brandt fees (see Brandt v. Superior Court (1985) 37 Cal.3d 813).

Judge Mooney heard this case from August 8, 2022, through August 10, 2022. On September 20, 2022, Judge Mooney issued his tentative decision on the matter. He did not issue a specific tentative on the Brandt fees at that time, but he invited Plaintiff to submit more evidence regarding their Brandt fee damage claim. On October 5, 2022, the parties received notice from the Court that the case had been reassigned to Judge Stern, effective October 10, 2022. On October 21, 2022, Judge Mooney’s Final Statement of Decision on the matter was issued, with a decision regarding the Brandt fee damages. Defendant objected to the amount of Brandt damages on October 25. The following day, this Court declined to rule on Defendant’s objections to the Decision because Judge Mooney had retired. Plaintiff filed a declaration regarding a proposed judgment on November 2, 2022. This declaration changes the amount of damages awarded by Judge Mooney in the October 21, 2022 Decision. Defendant objected to the proposed judgment on November 7, 2022.

On January 17, 2023, both parties submitted proposed forms of judgment to the Court. Both parties oppose the other party’s proposed judgment.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

            “As a general rule, ... the final judgment in any case tried without a jury ‘must be rendered by the judge who tried the case; it would be a denial of due process for a new judge to render a decision without having heard all of the evidence.’” (In re Marriage of Colombo (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 572, 581; Blumenthal v. Superior Court (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 672, 682; 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2020 supp.) Judgment, § 45.)

CCP § 635 provides a limited statutory exception to the above common law rule: “where the decision of the court has been entered in its minutes, and when the judge who heard or tried the case is unavailable.” The statute “authorizes the signing of a formal judgment by the presiding judge” or designee judge where “the judge who has heard the evidence has already provided the parties with a statement of decision,” but not “whenever the judge who has heard the evidence has orally entered a tentative decision, or tentative findings ... in the minutes.” (Armstrong v. Picquelle (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 122, 127; see Heenan v. Sobati (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 995, 1004 [“[u]nder Code of Civil Procedure section 635, presiding judges or their designee may sign a judgment ‘[i]n all cases where the decision of the court has been entered in its minutes, and when the judge who heard or tried the case is unavailable’”].) The statutory reference to “conforming to the minutes” is a clear reference to conformity with the statement of decision. That is because (1) Code Civ. Proc., § 635 references “the decision of the court” being “entered in the minutes”; and (2) “the decision of the court is the finalized statement of decision” (Raville v. Singh (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1133.) CCP § 635 permits a successor judge to enter only a judgment “conforming to the minutes”- and a judgment contradicting the final statement of decision in the minutes, doesn’t “conform [] to the minutes.”

Judge Mooney’s Final Statement of Decision awarded as follows:

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.

(Minute Order 10-21-2022.)

Plaintiff’s proposed judgment does not conform to Judge Mooney’s Final Statement of Decision. The Court does not adopt Plaintiff’s proposed judgment.

Defendant’s proposed judgment does conform to Judge Mooney’s Final Statement of Decision. The Court adopts Defendant’s proposed judgment and will enter it as the final judgment in this case.