Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: EC064044, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: EC064044    Hearing Date: October 28, 2022    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT

ALLEGATIONS:

Samir Ghannoum and Mohamed Ghannoum (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Julia K. Sevier (“Defendant”), alleging Plaintiffs rented Defendant a room within their home on March 9, 2012, under a three (3) month lease.  Plaintiffs allege, on or about June 26, 2012, they gave notice to Defendant that Plaintiffs were terminating her tenancy.  After the termination of Defendant’s tenancy, Plaintiffs initiated an unlawful detainer action to evict Defendant from Plaintiffs’ residential home.  Pursuant to the unlawful detainer action, Defendant was ordered removed and evicted from Plaintiffs’ house on May 10, 2013.  Plaintiffs allege, while moving out of the Plaintiffs’ home, Defendant wrongfully removed and damaged property in the home amounting to at least $39,300.  Plaintiffs brought the present action for damages in the aforementioned amount.

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on May 7, 2015, alleging two causes of action: (1) Conversion; and (2) Trespass to Chattels.

HISTORY:

The instant action went to trial before a jury on or about October 8, 2019.  On October 15, 2019, the jury returned a verdict against Plaintiffs, and in favor of Defendant.  On October 15, 2019, the Court entered judgment against Plaintiffs, and in favor of Defendant (“Judgment”).

On October 16, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion for Attorney Fees, requesting an award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending against Plaintiffs’ Complaint.  On November 15, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Attorney Fees in an amount of $93,913.85, which was subsequently amended to provide that Plaintiffs are ordered to pay Defendant $93,913.85 in attorneys’ fees and $1,893.30 in costs.

On February 3, 2020, Plaintiffs appealed the Court’s Order awarding attorneys’ fees.  On April 9, 2021, the Appellate Court affirmed the Court’s Order awarding attorneys’ fees. 

Subsequently, on June 1, 2021, Defendants filed a second Motion for Attorney Fees, requesting an award of attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against Plaintiffs’ appeal.  On August 17, 2021, the Court granted Defendant’s second Motion for Attorney Fees in an amount of $38,714.88.  On August 17, 2021, the Court amended the judgment to include this additional award of attorneys’ fees now owed by Plaintiffs to Defendant.

On May 2, 2022, Defendant filed a Notice and Application for Renewal of Judgment.  On May 3, 2022, Defendant filed a Proof of Service of Notice and Application of Renewal of Judgment.

The Court received the present Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment filed by Plaintiffs on June 7, 2022. The Court received the opposition to the Motion filed by Defendant on September 26, 2022. The Court has not received a reply from Defendants as of October 24, 2022 (deadline to file reply pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section1005, subdivision (b) is October 21, 2022).

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiffs move for an Order vacating the renewed judgment filed by Defendant on May 2, 2022.

ANALYSIS:

I.          LEGAL STANDARD

A money judgment is enforceable for a ten (10) year period following the date of entry.  (CCP § 683.020, subd. (a).)  On expiration of the ten (10) year period, all enforcement procedures (including levy, sale, collection, or delivery) must cease, and any liens created by the enforcement process are extinguished.  (Id., § 683.020, subd. (a), (b), (c).)  However, the ten (10) year period for enforcing a money judgment may be extended by the judgment creditor’s filing of an application for renewal of judgment in the court in which the judgment was entered.  (Id., §§ 683.110, subd. (a), 683.120, subd. (a).)  The judgment creditor’s filing of an application for renewal of judgment effectively extends the period of enforceability of the judgment as renewed for a period of ten (10) years from the date the application is filed.  (Id., § 683.120, subd. (b).)

The judgment creditor must serve notice of renewal of the judgment on the judgment debtor personally or first class mail.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.160, subd. (a).  The judgment creditor must additionally file a proof of service with the court clerk.  (Ibid.)  The notice of renewal of judgment shall be in a form prescribed by the Judicial Council and shall inform the judgment debtor that the judgment debtor has thirty (30) days within which to make a motion to vacate or modify the renewal.  (Ibid.)

A judgment debtor may move to vacate or modify the renewal of judgment filed by the judgment creditor.  (CCP § 683.170, subd. (b).)  This motion must be made no later than thirty (30) days after service of the notice of renewal of judgment.  (Id., § 683.170, subd. (a).)  This motion may be made on any ground that would be a defense to an action on the judgment, including the ground that the amount of the renewed judgment as entered is incorrect, or if the application for renewal was filed less than 5 years from the date of the previous renewal.  (Ibid.) 

II.        MERITS

Plaintiffs move for the Order vacating the renewal of judgment filed on May 2, 2022 on the following two (2) grounds.  First, Plaintiffs argue the amount of the renewed judgment as entered on May 2, 2022 is incorrect.  (Notice of Mot., at p. 2:1-2.)  Second, Plaintiffs argue Defendant failed to properly serve the notice and application of renewal of judgment in compliance with the procedures enumerated within CCP §683.160, subdivision (a).  (Ibid.; CCP § 683.160, subd. (a).)

Defendant’s primary opposing argument centers upon the contention that Plaintiffs’ present Motion is untimely as Plaintiffs failed to file the instant Motion within thirty (30) days from the date of service of the notice for renewal of judgment, as required by CCP § 68.170, subdivision (b).  

The Court addresses the parties’ arguments below.

            A.         Timeliness

The Court finds Defendant’s primary opposing argument unpersuasive.  Upon review of the relevant statutory provisions and evidentiary documents, the Court concludes Plaintiffs’ have properly filed the present Motion in a timely manner, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of the notice of renewal of judgment. 

CCP § 683.170, subdivision (b) provides, “[n]ot later than 30 days after service of the notice of renewal pursuant to [Code of Civil Procedure] Section 683.160, the judgment debtor may apply by noticed motion under this section for an order of the court vacating the renewal of the judgment.”  (CCP § 683.170, subd. (b).)  Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 provides, “any period of notice and any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended by five calendar days, upon service by mail, if the place of address and the place of mailing is within the State of California[.]”  (Id., § 1013, subd. (a).)

Here, Defendant’s Proof of Service, filed with this Court on May 3, 2022, demonstrates Plaintiffs’ counsel and Plaintiffs, each, individually were served by mail with a copy of the Notice of Renewal of Judgment and Application for Renewal of Judgment on May 3, 2022.  (Proof of Service (Renewal of Judgment), filed May 3, 2022, at p. 5.)  Accordingly, considering the thirty (30) day deadline articulated within Code of Civil Procedure section 683.170, as well as the five (5) calendar day extension due to service by mail, Plaintiffs were required to file the present Motion within thirty-five (35) days from the date of service (in other words, thirty-five (35) days from May 3, 2022), which equates to June 7, 2022.  Plaintiffs have appropriately filed the present Motion by this articulated deadline as Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion on June 7, 2022.  Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ Motion is timely, and further finds Defendant’s primary opposing argument unpersuasive.  The Court now addresses the merits of Plaintiffs’ Motion.

            B.         Grounds to Vacate Renewal of Judgment

As noted above, Plaintiffs move for an Order vacating the renewal of judgment on two (2) grounds—the amount of the renewed judgment is incorrect, and service of the notice of renewed judgment was improper.  The Court addresses Plaintiffs’ arguments respectively.

Initially, the Court concludes Plaintiffs have failed to meet their evidentiary burden in demonstrating the amount of the renewed judgment is incorrect.  The judgment debtor has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of evidence, that the debtor is entitled to relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 683.170 from renewal of judgment.  (Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 199 [“The judgment debtor bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she is entitled to relief under section 683.170.”].)  Plaintiffs’ submitted argument concerning the contention that the amount of the renewed judgment is improper is entirely conclusory, and limited to the following single sentence: “Since the total renewed judgment is inaccurate, it should be vacated under California Code of Civil Procedure § 683.170(a) (renewed judgment ‘may be vacated on . . . the ground that the amount of the renewed judgment as entered . . . is incorrect.’).”  (Mot., at p. 3:24-27.)  Plaintiffs fail to explain or demonstrate why the total renewed judgment is inaccurate.  Plaintiffs merely rely on this conclusory argument, and fail to submit an evidentiary declaration, or any other evidence, to sufficiently prove the merits of their argument by a preponderance of evidence.  Accordingly, the Court declines to vacate the renewal of judgment on the ground the amount of the renewed judgment is incorrect.

Further, the Court is unpersuaded that Defendant’s service of the notice of renewed judgment was improper.  Plaintiffs argue Defendant’s service of the notice of renewed judgment was improper because “the renewal papers were sent to Plaintiff’s residence.”  (Mot., at p. 3:8-9.)  Code of Civil Procedure 683.160, subdivision (a) provides, “[t]he judgment creditor shall serve a notice of renewal of the judgment on the judgment debtor.  Service shall be made personally or by first-class mail . . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.160, subd. (a).)  Here, Defendant’s Proof of Service demonstrates service was made upon Plaintiffs in accordance with the requirements enumerated within Code of Civil Procedure section 683.160, subdivision (a).  (Ibid.)  Defendant’s Proof of Service states Plaintiffs, each, individually and Plaintiff’s counsel of record were served by “first class postage” with the Notice of Renewal of Judgment and Application for Renewal of Judgment.  (Proof of Service (Renewal of Judgment), filed May 3, 2022, at p. 5.)  Accordingly, the Court concludes Defendant’s service of the notice of renewal of judgment was proper and appropriate pursuant to the requirements enumerated within Code of Civil Procedure section 683.160, subdivision (a).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.160, subd. (a).)  Therefore, the Court refuses to vacate the renewal of judgment on the ground Defendant’s service of the notice of renewed judgment was improper.

III.       CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate Renewed Judgment is DENIED.

---

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

Plaintiffs Samar Ghannoum and Mohamed Ghannoum’s Motion came on regularly for hearing on October 28, 2022, 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 IS DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: October 28, 2022                               _______________________________

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge

                                                                        Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles