Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 18STLC04374, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.  **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**

Case Number: 18STLC04374     Hearing Date: December 15, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY JUDGE OTHER THAN TRIAL JUDGE

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff VWM Analytics, LLC

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY JUDGE OTHER THAN TRIAL JUDGE

(CCP § 635)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff VWM Analytics, LLC’s Motion for Entry of Judgment by Judge Other than Trial Judge is GRANTED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     OK

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of December 12, 2022.         [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of December 12, 2022.         [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On April 3, 2018, Plaintiff VWM Analytics, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Henry M. Lee, an individual (“Lee”) and Henry M. Lee, Law Corporation, (collectively “Defendants”), for breach of contract and common counts.  On the same day, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, for (1) services rendered – agreed sum, (2) reasonable value of services rendered, and (3) open book account.

On February 28, 2019, the Court overruled Defendants’ Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint, filed on November 13, 2018, and ordered Defendants to file an Answer.  (2-28-19 Minute Order.)  On March 13, 2019, Defendants filed a joint Answer to the Complaint.

On September 11, 2019, Thomas M. Lee, shareholder of the Lee Law Offices, APLC, filed Notice Re: FTB Suspension of Henry M. Lee, Law Corporation.  At Non-Jury Trial on October 2, 2019, Defendant Lee presented Notice of Active Status of Henry M. Lee Corporation, Exhibit 101.  (10-2-19 Minute Order.)

            On October 1, 2019, the case was transferred to the Honorable Judge Palmer in Department 33 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.  (10-1-19 Limited Jurisdiction Trial Transfer.)

            Defendant Lee appeared in propria persona at the Non-Jury Trial hearings on October 1 and 2, 2019.  (10-1-19 Minute Order; 10-2-19 Minute Order.)

            Following Non-Jury Trial, the Court issued its Tentative Statement of Decision.  (12-19-19 Tentative Statement of Decision; 12-19-19 Minute Order.)  On January 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed a proposal to add prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees to the Tentative Statement of Decision.  (1-2-20 Plaintiff’s Proposal.)  On February 20, 2020, the Court issued its final Statement of Decision.  (2-20-20 Statement of Decision; 2-20-20 Minute Order.)  In the Statement of Decision, the Court noted that Plaintiff is not entitled to prejudgment costs and attorney’s fees and ordered Plaintiff to submit a proposed judgment consistent with the Court’s Statement of Decision, within ten (10) days.  (Ibid.)

            On February 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed Judgment After Bench Trial.  Defendant filed an Objection to the Judgment on March 5, 2020, on the premise that the proposed judgment incorrectly stated that Henry Lee appeared for and represented Henry M. Lee, Law Corporation.  (3-5-20 Defendant’s Objection.)  He argued that he had appeared in propria persona and not on behalf of the Henry M. Lee, Law Corporation.  (Ibid.)

            On October 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Entry of Judgment by Judge Other Than Trial Judge (“Motion”).

No opposition has been filed.

II.              Legal Standard & Discussion

According to Code of Civil Procedure § 635, “[i]n all cases where the decision of the court has been entered in its minutes, and when the judge who heard or tried the case is unavailable, the formal judgment or order conforming to the minutes may be signed by the presiding judge of the court or by a judge designated by the presiding judge.”

Here, the Court entered its final Statement of Decision on February 20, 2020, and ordered Plaintiff to file a Proposed Judgment within ten (10) days of filing the Statement of Decision.  Plaintiff filed a timely Judgment After Bench Trial, consistent with the Statement of Decision.  The proposed judgment was not signed and Judge Palmer is no longer available to sign it.

On March 5, 2020, Defendant Lee objected to the proposed judgment on the basis that it stated that Defendant Henry M. Lee appeared on behalf of Defendant Henry M. Lee, Law Corporation.  (3-5-20 Defendant’s Objection.)  He argued that he had appeared in propria persona and not on behalf of the Henry M. Lee, Law Corporation.  (Ibid.)

The Court finds that the proposed Judgment After Bench Trial is consistent with the Court’s Statement of Decision.  Defendant Henry M. Lee objected to the proposed judgment arguing that he appeared on behalf of himself and not on behalf of Defendant Henry M. Lee, Law Corporation.  However, throughout the litigation, Defendant Lee appeared as counsel of record for Defendant Henry M. Lee, Law Corporation.  Defendant Lee has not filed a motion to be relieved as counsel of record at any point to indicate to the Court that he is no longer representing Defendant Henry M. Lee, Law Corporation. Accordingly, the Court finds that that Defendant Lee still represented Defendant Henry M. Lee, Law Corporation and the judgment against it will stand.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reason, Plaintiff VWM Analytics, LLC’s Motion for Entry of Judgment by Judge Other than Trial Judge is GRANTED.  The Court requests that Plaintiff resubmit the judgment for signature.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.