Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: PC058248, Date: 2024-07-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: PC058248 Hearing Date: July 26, 2024 Dept: F43
Dept. F43
Date: 7-26-24
Case #PC058248,
Nordhoff Terrace Condominium vs. Jean-Claude Debrosse
Trial Date: N/A
MOTION TO QUASH CIVIL SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE
AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MOVING PARTY: Defendant
Jean-Claude Debrosse
RESPONDING
PARTY: Plaintiff Nordhoff Terrance Condominium Association
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Defendant
requests that the Court quash and/or stay the subpoena in this matter.
Alternatively, Defendant requests that the Court vacate the judgment.
RULING: Motion
is denied.
SUMMARY OF
ACTION
Plaintiff
Nordhoff Terrace Condominium Association (Plaintiff) obtained a judgment by way
of default against Defendant Jean-Claude Debrosse (Defendant) on November 15,
2019. Defendant was represented by counsel at the time, and the default was
entered after the trial court had issued an order for terminating sanctions and
struck Defendant’s answer. The original action asserted claims for injunction
based on a breach of Plaintiff’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for
unapproved remodeling.
Defendant has
known of the judgment since December 18, 2019, because he received notice of a
lien placed on his condo unit. (Debrosse Decl., ¶ 28.)
Defendant now
seeks to quash Plaintiff’s subpoena for his personal appearance because he
claims that the judgment against him was the result of his attorney’s gross
negligence, and he now seeks time to get new counsel and contest the validity
of the judgment. The Court will note that Defendant’s motion was filed in pro
per on July 1, 2024, and on July 23, 2024, his new attorney filed a
Substitution of Attorney form. The Court also notes that it has been four and a
half years since Defendant claims that he received notice of the judgment.
Plaintiff filed
its opposition on July 23, 2024. While this opposition is technically late, the
Court will consider the arguments in Plaintiff’s opposition. Plaintiff argues
that all deadlines for Defendant to contest the judgment have passed. Plaintiff
also argues that until such time as the judgment is satisfied, it remains valid
and enforceable. Finally, Plaintiff argues that it has all the rights to
enforce the judgment and that Defendant previously agreed to pay Plaintiff’s
litigation costs.
On July 25,
2024, Defendant filed an ex parte motion requesting that the Court either
continue the hearing on this motion or treat is as a motion to vacate the
judgment. The Court will first treat this as a motion to vacate the judgment,
then address quashing the subpoena.
Defendant’s
Request for Judicial Notice: Defendant has requested that the Court take
judicial notice of the case and records filed in another case. The relevance of
these documents is unclear, but the Court takes judicial notice of their
existence, but the truth of any matter asserted therein.
Plaintiff’s
Evidentiary Objections:
Sustained: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Overruled: None
ANALYSIS
Motion to Vacate
When “‘a motion
to vacate a default judgment is made more than six months after the default was
entered, the motion is not directed to the court's statutory power to grant
relief for mistake or excusable neglect under ... section 473, but rather is
directed to the court’s inherent equity power to grant relief from a default or
default judgment procured by extrinsic fraud or mistake.’ [Citations.]” (Moghaddam
v. Bone (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 283, 290.) Extrinsic fraud is when a party
is deprived of the opportunity to present his claim or defense to the court, and
where he is kept ignorant or prevented from fully participating in the
proceeding. (Id.) Extrinsic mistake involves the excusable neglect of a
party that results in an unjust judgment, and an example is when an attorney
becomes incapacitated. (Id.) “To set aside a judgment based on extrinsic
fraud or extrinsic mistake, the moving party must satisfy three elements: ‘First, the
defaulted party must demonstrate that it has a meritorious case.
Secondly, the party seeking to set aside the default must
articulate a satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense to the
original action. Lastly, the moving party must demonstrate
diligence in seeking to set aside the default once it had been discovered.’” (Id.
at 290-291 (emphasis in original).)
Defendant filed
this motion more than four years after the judgment, so he would have to meet
the elements for extrinsic fraud or mistake in order to vacate it. He has not
done sone. Defendant has not demonstrated that he has a meritorious case; he
has not articulated a satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense in the
original action; and he has not demonstrated that he exercised diligence in
seeking to set aside the default when he discovered it in 2019.
Accordingly,
the motion to vacate is denied. The Court will next address the motion to
quash.
Motion to Quash
Defendant cites
CCP § 1987.1 in support of his motion. It provides that any witness may make a
motion to quash a subpoena and request a protective order upon reasonable
notice. (See Lee v. Swansboro County Property Owners Assn. (2007) 151
Cal.App.4th 575, 583.) The Court has broad authority to quash or modify a
subpoena or issue a protective order. (Id.) However, there is nothing in
this section regarding determination of the validity of a judgment.
Defendant also argues
that the Court should quash or stay the subpoena because it seeks to enforce a
judgment that is void or voidable. Defendant also argues that the Court should
quash the subpoena because the HOA waived its right to collect the judgment,
but he has provided no admissible evidence supporting this claim.
The primary
basis for Defendant’s motion is based on the alleged invalidity of a judgment
entered in 2019. A motion to quash subpoena is not the appropriate means to contest
the validity of that judgment. Defendant has not provided any substantive basis
for quashing the subpoena. Accordingly, the motion to quash is denied.
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motion
to vacate the judgment and motion to quash the subpoena are denied.
Moving party to
give notice.