Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCP00295, Date: 2024-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCP00295    Hearing Date: March 26, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 3-26-24

Case #23CHCP00295, Crestmark vs. Richard Stephen Edmundson

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION TO VACATE SISTER STATE JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Richard Stephen Edmundson

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Crestmark, a Division of Metabank, National Association

RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendant requests that the Court vacate the entry of the sister state judgment

RULING: Motion to vacate sister state judgment is denied.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On July 13, 2023, Plaintiff Crestmark (Plaintiff) filed an Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister State Judgment based on a Michigan Judgment against Defendant Richard Stephen Edmundson (Defendant) in the amount of $257,140.23, plus interest of $13,750.00. Plaintiff served Defendant via substitute service on July 23, 2023, and filed the proof of service on August 4, 2023.

In his motion filed on August 11, 2023, Defendant argues that the sister state judgment may not have been served on him, that the summons may not have resulted in actual notice to Defendant, and that the substitute service was deficient.

In Plaintiff’s opposition, Plaintiff indicates that it filed an amended proof of service on August 18, 2023, with an affidavit of due diligence after realizing that this was missing from the initial proof of service. Plaintiff has also personally served Defendant with the sister state judgment documents on September 24, 2023, and November 7, 2023. (See Opposition, Rudman Decl., Exs. 9 and 10.)

Plaintiff argues that the initial substitute service was proper pursuant to CCP § 415.20(b). Plaintiff further argues that any alleged defect was cured by actual notice when Defendant was personally served on September 24, 2023, and November 7, 2023. (CCP § 473.5(c); see Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544.) Because Plaintiff has personally served Defendant, there is no doubt that service has been completed on Defendant.

Plaintiff has also requested attorney fees as part of its opposition. The Court declines to award any attorney fees at this time.

Defendant’s motion to vacate sister state judgment is denied.

Moving party to give notice.