Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCP00124, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCP00124    Hearing Date: October 20, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO VACATE SISTER STATE JUDGMENT

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

NOTICE

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  “The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at

(818) 260-8412.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

This case concerns the enforcement of a sister state judgment granted to Jason Hawkins (“Hawkins”) as against Joseph Patrick Kelly (“Kelly”). The sister state judgment is based on an Oregon default judgment obtained in 2021 against Kelly in the amount of $10,000. Kelly moves to vacate the sister state judgment on grounds that the Oregon court rendered the judgment in excess of its jurisdiction.

California’s Sister State Money Judgments Act provides economical and expeditious registration procedures for enforcing sister state money judgments in California. (Casey v. Hill (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 937, 960.) A sister state judgment has the same force and effect as a judgment originally issued by a California court and may be enforced or satisfied in a like manner. (C.C.P. § 1710.35)

A judgment debtor has 30 days to challenge entry of a sister state judgement with a motion to vacate. (C.C.P. § 1710.40(b).) The motion to vacate can be based on any grounds which would be a defense to the action in the state of California. (C.C.P. § 1710.40(a).)

A party moving to vacate entry of judgment has the burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they are entitled to relief. (Tsakos Shipping & Trading, S.A. v. Juniper Garden Town Homes, Ltd. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 74, 88.) The Court finds Kelly has not met his burden to show entitlement to relief.

Kelly moves to vacate on grounds that the court in Oregon lacked personal jurisdiction. Kelly claims he was never personally served at his home in California with notice of the suit and instead service was rendered upon his roommate at the time and given to him a month later. (Exh. 12, Affidavit of Joseph Kelly.) Kelly submits a litany of documents in support of his claim that he was out of town at the time service was rendered.

Kelly states he filed a motion to vacate default in Oregon trial court and on April 7, 2022, a hearing was conducted on the matter.  (Mot. p. 3.) From Kelly’s submissions of portions of the trial court transcript it is unclear what the Oregon court’s ruling on the matter. However, Hawkins’ application contains an entry of a supplemental judgment and money award for attorneys’ fees on May 11, 2023. (App. p. 6.) From this entry it appears the trial court denied the motion.

Kelly states “both appeal cases in Oregon for this matter, are currently ongoing” though it is not entirely clear what the other case is. The Court construes Kelly’s statement to mean that he is appealing the trial court’s denial of his motion to vacate. If this is the case, then the issues of personal jurisdiction and service are for the Oregon Court of Appeals to decide. Any decision rendered by this Court while the Oregon Court of Appeals is deliberating would be an interference with their jurisdiction. Accordingly, the motion to vacate the sister state judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

As the case is pending appeal in Oregon, and the moving party appears to have been in default in the Oregon Court, the default must first be vacated prior to the Court entertaining leave to file a Cross-Complaint.  Furthermore, the matter must have been resolved by the Oregon appellate court.

C.C.P. § 110.50(b) provides that the Court may, on its own motion, grant a stay of enforcement of a sister state judgment where a mater is pending appeal. Given that Kelly has provided evidence the matter is under appeal, attached to his motion as Exhibits 23 and 24, the Court finds it appropriate to issue a stay of enforcement until such time as the appeal is resolved.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Joseph Patrick Kelly’s Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment and Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint came on regularly for hearing on October 20, 2023, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO VACATE THE SISTER STATE JUDGMENT IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

THE COURT, ON ITS OWN MOTION, GRANTS A STAY OF EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT WHILE THE MATTER IS ON APPEAL.

STATUS CONFERENCE RE: OREGON APPEAL AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT ARE SET FOR MARCH 18, 2024, AT 9:00 A.M.

DEFENDANT KELLY TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  October 20, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles