Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 00CC143665, Date: 2022-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Motion - Other 

Tentative Ruling:  Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Laurence Grabowski (“Laurence”) for an order deeming his Application for and Renewal of Judgment (the “Application”) as filed on May 20, 2022 on the grounds that the Application was timely filed and the Court Clerk’s rejection is immaterial.

The Application was submitted for filing on May 20, 2022.  (Declaration of Jesus Hinojosa, ¶ 2.)  On the following Monday, May 23, 2022, counsel for Laurence learned the Application had been rejected.  (Id., ¶¶ 4-6.)  The reason for the rejection as stated on the rejection form was because “Amounts listed in Section #5a-h cannot be left blank. An amount must be entered. If no amount applies, $0.00 must be entered.”  (Id., Ex. 4.)  The Application, as submitted, left Section 5(a)-(g) blank.  Section 5(h) states that the total renewed judgment is for $2,400,000.00.  (Id., Ex. 2.)  Review of the Application shows it was otherwise properly filled out and signed.

The Court finds Rojas v. Cutsforth (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 774, instructive.  There, the clerk rejected a complaint mailed for filing because the locally required declaration for court assignment was unsigned and the summons had the address of the wrong court branch.  (Id., at p. 775.)  As a result of the rejection, the defendant was granted summary judgment on the statute of limitations.  (Ibid.)  The clerk had mailed the rejection to counsel after receiving the documents on November 7, 1996, but counsel did not receive the notice of rejection until November 27, 1996.  (Id., at p. 776.) 

The appellate court reversed the judgment with instructions to deem the complaint filed on November 7, 1996.  (Id., at p. 778.)  The court noted the lack of a signature on the properly completed form could not have presented any significant impediment to the fulfillment of the form’s purpose, which was to aid the clerk in determining to which division the case should be assigned.  (Id., at p. 777.)  The court stated that denying the plaintiff “her cause of action for lack of a signature makes a mockery of judicial administration.”  (Ibid.)  It further noted there was no authority in support of the proposition that the clerk may refuse to file the complaint if the summons contains the incorrect address.  (Ibid.) 

Here, as in Rojas, it appears the failure of Laurence to fill in $2,400,000.00 at line 5(a) and $0.00 at lines 5(b)-(g) does not impede the fulfillment of the form’s purpose, which is to provide all the information necessary to compute the amount of the judgment as renewed.  Laurence filled in at line 5(h) that the total renewed judgment is for $2,400,000.00, the original amount of the judgment in his favor.  Because there is no difference from the original judgment and the total renewed judgment, the indication that the total renewed judgment is for $2,400,000.00 is sufficient.

In Opposition, Defendant Patrick Grabowski, Sr. (“Patrick”) argues Laurence’s assertion that he is owed $2.4 million is incorrect because he must pay a number of sums under the Judgment before that amount is owed to him and Laurence has never attempted to pay all of the money he owes to Patrick.  The Court rejects this argument for two reasons.

First, Laurence correctly points out this is a postjudgment motion subject to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.2231.  (See Rule 3.221(a) [“any postjudgment motion except for a motion for attorney's fees and costs is governed by this rule.”].)  Thus, Patrick’s Opposition was due within five days of service of the moving papers, which were served on 5-27-22 by mail.  Patrick did not file the Opposition until 9-28-22.  Therefore, Patrick’s Opposition is untimely.

Second, Patrick’s opportunity to challenge the renewal of the judgment is through the filing of a motion to vacate or modify the renewal, not through any opposition to the instant Motion.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 683.170.)

Given the above, the Court GRANTS the Motion.  Laurence’s Application is deemed as filed on May 20, 2022.

The deadline for any motion to vacate or modify the renewal shall be 30 days from the date of this Order.

Laurence to give notice.