Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: SC129646, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC129646    Hearing Date: June 22, 2023    Dept: 207

Background

This case arises from the loan of money from Plaintiff Mela Ferrer (“Plaintiff”) to Defendant Benson Gilliard (“Defendant”) to finance a Defendant’s new business. Plaintiff alleges Defendant has failed to repay the loans as required by the agreement of the parties and subsequent amendments to the original agreement. Plaintiff’s operative Complaint, filed August 6, 2018, asserts causes of action for fraud, false promise, breach of contract, and elder financial abuse, among others.

A default judgment was entered against Defendant on November 14, 2019. On October 16, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to vacate the default judgment, which was granted by the Court on September 2, 2021. Defendant then filed an answer by way of a General Denial on September 8, 2021.

Plaintiff argued she was not properly served with notice of Defendant’s motion to vacate, and on January 24, 2022, the Court granted her the opportunity to file an opposition and reconsider Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff filed her opposition on January 27, 2022. Having read and considered Plaintiff’s opposition, on March 25, 2022, the Court again granted Defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment entered against him and directed Defendant to answer Plaintiff’s Complaint by April 14, 2022. Defendant did so, filing a General Denial on April 12, 2022.

On June 10, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default against Defendant and the case proceeded to a bench trial before the Court on June 27, 2022. At trial the Court heard testimony from both parties and admitted documentary evidence from Plaintiff. That same day, the Court entered judgment in Plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $44,208.41 in principal and interest of $18,749.21 for a total damages award of $62,957.62. The Court also denied Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages.

On May 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion titled “Motion for Document Fraud.” On June 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended version of this motion titled “Motion to Amend Motion for Document Fraud.” Both motions are unopposed.

Analysis

It is not clear to the Court what relief Plaintiff is seeking by way of her amended motion. Plaintiff’s briefing contains a litany of references to state and federal code sections and authority regarding falsifying evidence, forgery, fraud, and abuse of process. As far as the Court can determine, Plaintiff appears to be alleging that Defendant lied in bringing his prior order to vacate the prior 2019 default judgment entered against Defendant. These arguments appear to rehash Plaintiff’s prior opposition to Defendant’s motion to vacate that judgment. When Plaintiff claimed she had not been properly served with that motion, the Court granted her time to file an opposition. Plaintiff was given a full and fair opportunity to oppose that motion, and she did so. Ultimately the Court granted Defendant’s motion. The time for Plaintiff to move for reconsideration of that determination pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 has long since expired.

Plaintiff also appears to be requesting the Court award her punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294. Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of punitive damages at the June 27, 2022, trial in this matter. The Court in its discretion declined to award Plaintiff punitive damages. If Plaintiff believed the Court erred in not awarding her punitive damages, she was free to appeal the Court’s June 27, 2022, judgment. Having failed to do so, she has waived any claim of error in this regard.

The Court also notes that while Plaintiff’s motion is replete with references to perjury, falsification of evidence, and abuse of process, she has not put forth any evidence establishing Defendant has engaged in any such conduct.

The actual basis for Plaintiff’s motion appears to be her dissatisfaction that Defendant has not satisfied the June 27, 2022, judgment entered against him and has not paid her attorney’s fees and costs. As memorialized in the June 27, 2022, minute order issued by the Court, the Court awarded Plaintiff her “Costs and attorney fees pursuant to a timely filed memorandum of costs.” Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a), if Plaintiff wished to recover her trial costs she had to file and serve a memorandum of costs within 15 days from service of the notice of entry of judgment. Here, the Court served the notice of entry of judgment on the parties on June 27, 2022. As Plaintiff did not file and serve a memorandum of costs within 15 days of June 27, 2022, she has waived any right to recover those costs from Defendant.

Similarly, under rule 3.1702(b), if Plaintiff wished to recover her attorney’s fees, she had to bring a motion establishing the amount of those fees within the time to file an appeal pursuant to rules 8.104 and 8.108. As noted above, Plaintiff’s time to appeal the June 27, 2022, judgment has long since expired, and thus she has waived any right to recover her attorney’s fees from Defendant as well.

The Court understands Plaintiff’s frustrations in seeking to enforce her judgment against Defendant. However, the Court cannot give Plaintiff legal advice as to how to collect on that judgment given Defendant’s apparent unwillingness to pay it voluntarily. Plaintiffs’ motions are DENIED.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motions for document fraud are DENIED.