Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV03683, Date: 2024-11-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03683    Hearing Date: November 25, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Blue Rider Media Finance, LLC v. War Paint Movie LLC, Case no. 23SMCV03683

Hearing date November 25, 2024

Defendant’s Ex Parte Application to Vacate Stipulated Judgment and Order of Assignment

Plaintiff Blue Rider Media Finance sued defendant LLCs 13 Films, War Paint Movie and Schenz for breach of contract. Defendants moved ex parte 11/5/24 to vacate a stipulated judgment, arguing it was fraudulent. The court denied the application and set the matter for hearing on 11/25/24. Min. Order 11/7/24. Defendant Schenz, in pro per, moved ex parte 11/7/24 for an order vacating the stipulated judgment and subsequent order of assignment and a TRO enjoining plaintiff from pursuing defendants’ entitlements pending the 11/25/24 hearing. The court denied the applications. See Min. Order 11/19/24. Plaintiff opposes defendants’ motion to vacate the stipulated judgment and objects to defendant Schenz’s 11/5/24 declaration.

Plaintiff objects generally to defendant Schenz’s declaration as inadmissible hearsay. SUSTAINED. Objection 1 SUSTAINED (improper legal conclusion), objection 2-4 SUSTAINED (argumentative, improper legal conclusion).

A motion for relief from an order under CCP §473(b) must be filed within a reasonable time, but no later than six months after the date of the order. CCP §473(b); People v. The North River Ins. Co. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 712, 721. This time limit is jurisdictional. A judge may not grant relief under CCP §473(b) after this time but may grant equitable relief if the moving party shows extrinsic fraud or mistake. Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980-981. A judge has no authority under CCP §473(b) to excuse a party's noncompliance with the six-month limit. Arambula v. Union Carbide Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 333, 345.

To set aside a final order based on extrinsic fraud, “the moving party must demonstrate that he or she has a meritorious case, that [they have] a satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense to the original action and that [they] exercised diligence in seeking to set aside the default once the fraud had been discovered.” In re Marriage of Stevenot (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1051, 1071 (citations original); Hudson v. Foster (2021) 68 Cal. App. 5th 640, 664.

Defendant Schenz is not currently licensed to practice law in California and is in pro per. Supp. Decl. Coate, para. 22. Entity defendants 13 Films and War Paint Movie must be represented by counsel as LLCs under California law; they cannot be represented by defendant Schenz.

Defendant Schenz argues the 11/11/23 stipulated judgment was obtained through extrinsic fraud or mistake. Decl. Schenz para. 3. Per the declaration of former counsel Morse, defendant Schenz actively engaged in the stipulation process and signed the final agreement and subsequent errata. Decl. Morse paras. 5-9, exh. 3. Aside from his own hearsay declaration, defendant Schenz offers no evidence or explanation in support of his allegations of fraud. This is insufficient to establish extrinsic fraud or mistake.

Plaintiff also argues defendants fall outside the jurisdictional six-month time limit. CCP §473(b). Defendants stipulated 11/11/23; the instant motion was filed 11/5/24. Even if the court was inclined to grant relief under CCP §473(b), defendants fall well outside the jurisdictional time limits. There is no basis for the court to grant the requested relief. DENIED.