Judge John C. Gastelum, Case 18-00984787 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 18-00984787, Date: 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment

Tentative Ruling: Defendant Milestone Escrow, Inc.’s (“Milestone”) Motion to Vacate Void Judgment is GRANTED. MP to give notice.

Milestone seeks an order vacating the 4-28-21 Amended Judgment as void pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d) because Milestone was never properly served with a motion to amend the original judgment or with a copy of the proposed amended judgment.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d) (“Section 473(d)”) provides:

The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.

In Pittman v. Beck Park Apartments Ltd. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1009, 1020 (internal quotation marks omitted), the appellate court described the process for a Section 473(d) determination:

In determining whether an order is void for purposes of section 473, subdivision (d), courts distinguish between orders that are void on the face of the record and orders that appear valid on the face of the record but are shown to be invalid through consideration of extrinsic evidence. This distinction may be important in a particular case because it impacts the procedural mechanism available to attack the judgment [or order], when the judgment [or order] may be attacked, and how the party challenging the judgment [or order] proves that the judgment [or order] is void. [Citation.] An order is considered void on its face only when the invalidity is apparent from an inspection of the judgment roll or court record without consideration of extrinsic evidence. [Citation] [“[t]o prove that the judgment is void [on its face], the party challenging the judgment is limited to the judgment roll, i.e., no extrinsic evidence is allowed”]; [Citation.] There is no time limit to attack a judgment void on its face. [Citations.] If the invalidity can be shown only through consideration of extrinsic evidence, such as declarations or testimony, the order is not void on its face. Such an order must be challenged within the six-month time limit prescribed by section 473, subdivision (b), or by an independent action in equity. [Citation.]

Here, although Milestone has provided an attorney declaration, it is evident from the court’s records alone that Milestone’s counsel was not properly served with notice that an Amended Judgment was being sought.

The sequence of relevant events follows. After a bench trial, this court issued a statement of decision directing Plaintiff to prepare a proposed judgment. (ROA 202). While Milestone appeared at and participated in the trial, the proposed judgment prepared by Plaintiff only included Defendant Alfredo Perez. (ROA 207). Defendants objected to the inclusion of prejudgment interest in the proposed judgment. (ROA 205). This court overruled the objection and entered the judgment on 12-4-2020. (ROA 209, 211).

On 12-11-2020, the court set an OSC re Dismissal re Defendant Milestone Escrow Inc. for 2-1-21, and notice of the same was served electronically on all counsel by the clerk. (ROA 213). As reflected in the 2-1-21 Minute Order, only Plaintiff’s counsel appeared at the OSC. The OSC was continued to 4-19-21, and Plaintiff was ordered to give notice of the continued hearing. That same day, Plaintiff submitted a proposed amended judgment to the court. The proof of service indicates it was only served by mail on Defendants’ counsel. (ROA 222). Plaintiff also filed and served a notice of continuance of the OSC by mail only. There were no appearances at the 4-19-21 OSC. (ROA 228). On 4/28/21, the court signed the amended judgment, which adds Milestone as a judgment debtor. (ROA 230).

Orange County Superior Court Local Rule 352 provides:

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(d), documents filed by represented parties in all limited, unlimited, and complex civil actions must be filed electronically and allow for service electronically, unless the Court excuses parties from doing so.

In turn, CRC 2.251(c) provides, in part:

(3) Except when personal service is otherwise required by statute or rule, a party or other person that is required to file documents electronically in an action must also serve documents and accept service of documents electronically from all other parties or persons, unless:

(A) The court orders otherwise, or

(B) The action includes parties or persons that are not required to file or serve documents electronically, including self-represented parties or other self-represented persons; those parties or other persons are to be served by non-electronic methods unless they affirmatively consent to electronic service.

The service of the proposed amended judgment was by mail, which is not effective service under the California Rules of Court.

“When a court lacks jurisdiction in a fundamental sense, an ensuing judgment is void.” (People v. American Contractors Indem. Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653, 660). “A court can lack fundamental authority over the subject matter, question presented, or party, making its judgment void, or it can merely act in excess of its jurisdiction or defined power, rendering the judgment voidable.” (In re Marriage of Goddard (2004) 33 Cal.4th 49, 56). Lack of notice to the objecting party can also render a judgment void, as it deprives a party of its due process rights. (See Garamendi v. Golden Eagle Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 694, 708.)

As Milestone was not effectively provided with notice that an Amended Judgment was being sought, the 4-28-21 Amended Judgment (ROA 230) is void and is hereby vacated.