Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCP00124, Date: 2025-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCP00124    Hearing Date: February 7, 2025    Dept: A

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

ALLEGATIONS: 

This case concerns the enforcement of a sister state judgment granted to Jason Hawkins (Plaintiff) as against Joseph Patrick Kelly (Defendant). The sister state judgment is based on an Oregon default judgment obtained in 2021 against Defendant in the amount of $10,000.

On October 2, 2023, Defendant moved to vacate the sister state judgment on grounds that the Oregon court rendered the judgment in excess of its jurisdiction. At the time this motion came on for hearing, Defendant’s appeal with the Oregon Supreme Court was still pending. As such, the Court continued the motion and stayed the matter pending the result of the appeal. On October 9, 2024, Defendant’s Motion to Vacate came on once again for hearing, at which time the Court denied the motion.

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of his Motion to Vacate. Plaintiff opposes the motion and Defendant replies.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

C.C.P. § 1008(a) provides “When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. 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.”

II.                 MERITS

Timeline

On October 2, 2023, Defendant moved to vacate the sister state judgment on grounds that the Oregon court rendered the judgment in excess of its jurisdiction. Defendant argued that the default judgment was obtained without proper service. On November 9, 2023, the motion came before this Court for hearing. The Court continued the motion to October 9, 2024 and stayed the matter, finding adjudication premature given Defendant’s appeal with the Oregon Supreme Court was still pending.

On July 7, 2024, the Oregon Supreme Court denied Defendant’s request for review. On September 4, 2024, the Oregon Court of Appeal entered their appellate and supplemental judgment against Defendant. (See Sep. 20, 2024 Booska Decl., Exh. A.)

On September 23, 2024, Defendant filed a “Motion to Quash Service of Summons.” Despite its labeling, it was clear that Defendant’s purpose in filing this motion was to vacate the Oregon state judgment pursuant to C.C.P. § 1710.40(a). Although Defendant did not request leave to file any further briefing in advance of the October 9, 2024 hearing for the Motion to Vacate, the Court elected to consider the merits of the argument presented in his Motion to Quash.

On October 9, 2024, the Motion to Vacate came on once again for hearing. The Court denied the motion on grounds that it improperly requested this Court to invalidate the findings of the courts of the state of Oregon as to their jurisdiction in rendering/affirming the default judgment.

Discussion

The Court begins by briefly addressing Plaintiff’s argument that the instant motion is untimely. Defendant’s deadline to file this motion pursuant to C.C.P. §1008 was 10 days after notice of the Court’s October 9 ruling, which appears to have been given by Plaintiff’s counsel on October 11, 2024. While the filing for the instant motion shows October 22, 2024 (one day after the deadline), Plaintiff has submitted proof that he electronically submitted the motion to be filed on October 21, 2024 at 8:39 p.m. (Reply Exh. 2.) Plaintiff’s motion is therefore timely.

Although it is timely, Plaintiff’s motion is deficient in that it does not state proper grounds for reconsideration pursuant to C.C.P. § 1008(a). Plaintiff’s motion presents no “new or different facts, circumstances, or law” upon which reconsideration can be properly based. Plaintiff’s grounds for this motion are stated as (1) the Oregon Court lacked fundamental jurisdiction over him and (2) the default judgment was entered via error, mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. Both of these arguments, and the facts supporting them, were read, considered, and rejected by the Court in making its October 9 ruling. Although the Court believes it was very clear that it considered whether jurisdictional issues were properly adjudicated in the Oregon court, it will address Plaintiff’s arguments on that front for a final time.

To begin, the Court notes that Defendant cites to Baker v. General Motors Corp. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 166 which Defendant states held the following:

A California court may not recognize a foreign judgment if there are substantial doubts about the jurisdiction of the court that rendered the judgment, and it has an obligation to conduct an independent review of the jurisdictional issues, even if they have been previously raised in the sister state. The California court may not simply accept the judgment of the foreign court as conclusive but must independently assess the jurisdictional basis for that judgment.

“Baker v. General Motors Corp. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 166” does not exist.  There is no case by that name at that citation. There is no case by that name, published or unpublished, in 2005. Nor does the quoted language from this fictitious case appear in any other case.  The Court is aware that some parties attempt to use artificial intelligence (AI) in drafting legal documents and do so with great peril.  Whether this case is, what is often known as, an  “AI hallucination” or not the Court will not speculate, but the case and quotation are nonexistent.

The law is clear that a sister state judgment may be challenged on jurisdictional grounds only if the issue of jurisdiction was not litigated in the foreign state (Bank of America v. Jennett (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 104, 114; see also Craig v. Superior Court (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 675, 680 [ holding that where “the court of the first state has expressly litigated the question of jurisdiction, its determination is res judicata and is itself protected by the full faith and credit clause.”].) As the party moving to set aside the sister-state judgment, Defendant bears the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to relief. (Tsakos Shipping & Trading, S.A. v. Juniper Garden Town Homes, Ltd. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 74, 88.) In this context Defendant must demonstrate that the jurisdictional issues were not litigated such that an independent review by this Court is required. The Court finds Defendant has not done so.

Defendant’s initial Motion to Vacate made very clear that jurisdictional issues were raised at the Oregon trial court level. Exhibit 22 to Defendant’s initial motion is an excerpt of the hearing from his Motion to Vacate at the Oregon trial court level, wherein the trial court judge explicitly contemplated Plaintiff’s argument as to jurisdiction. (See October 23, 2023 Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and our Default Judgment, Exh. 22, at p. 63.) That Defendant’s Motion to Vacate was not decided on personal jurisdictional grounds does not mean it was not litigated. Exhibit 3 to that same motion shows the trial court later opining that neither party raised an issue as to whether that court had jurisdiction to rule on the motion. (Id., Exh. 3 at p. 27.) The trial court ultimately stated that such was now a determination for the Oregon appellate court. (Id.)

Defendant’s argument that the Oregon appellate courts and Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the judgment without opinion are irrelevant to whether the matter was litigated in those courts. Defendant states clearly that he “begged and implored” both of those judicial bodies to consider the fundamental lack of jurisdiction. In other words, Defendant explicitly litigated the issue of jurisdiction to the Oregon appellate courts and Oregon Supreme Court. To the extent that Defendant argues his points on jurisdiction were not considered by those courts, he has presented no evidence showing as much. This Court will not presume that the Oregon appellate courts and Oregon Supreme Court did not consider Defendant’s jurisdictional arguments in absence of evidence to the contrary. In other words, the evidence shows that Defendant litigated the jurisdictional issues at all levels and his arguments on that front were found unpersuasive.

Lastly, the Court addresses Defendant’s argument that the judgment should be stayed once more pending binding arbitration in Oregon. Defendant states he initiated arbitration on January 23, 2025. (Reply Exh. 1.) The Court finds this presents no basis for reconsideration. Defendant initiated arbitration several months after he filed the instant motion.  Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff concealed the arbitration clause in their agreement from the Oregon courts is not persuasive. Defendant appeared to contest the Oregon judgment over three years ago and has at no time in those years initiated arbitration.

Sanctions

If a motion for reconsideration is found to lack evidentiary support or legal merit, sanctions may be imposed against the moving party under C.C.P. § 128.7. C.C.P. § 1008(d), provides in pertinent part: “A violation of this section may be punished as a contempt and with sanctions as allowed by Section 128.7...” In addition, a motion for reconsideration justifies sanctions under C.C.P. § 128.5 if the underlying motion was frivolous in the sense that it was totally devoid of merit, lacking any basis in statutory or case law, or without any necessary evidence to support it. (Karwasky v. Zachay (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 679, 681.)

Here, the Court finds Defendant’s motion for reconsideration to have been frivolous. Defendant’s motion presented no facts or law which were not before the Court at the time of the October 9, 2024 ruling. While the Court has expounded on its previous ruling in adjudicating this motion, it has done so solely for the purpose of clarifying matters for Defendant and addressing collateral matters he raised in Reply. Accordingly, the Court awards sanctions as against Defendant in the amount of $1,200. This amount represents three hours of attorney work in opposing the motion at the sated rate of $400 per hour. (Booska Decl. ¶ 4.)

--- 

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 for Reconsideration came on regularly for hearing on February 7, 2025, 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 FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED.  

SANCTIONS ARE ASSESSED AGAINST DEFENDANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,200 AND PAYABLE TO PLAINTIFF.  SANCTIONS TO BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS.

IT IS SO ORDERED.