TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants/Judgment Debtors Eric Cutujian and Roger Cutan’s Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment, or in the Alternative, for an Order to Stay Enforcement of Judgment is DENIED.

Defendants/Judgment Debtors Eric Cutujian and Roger Cutan to give notice. 

REASONING

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants/Judgment Debtors Eric Cutujian and Roger Cutan (“Defendants”) request judicial notice of nine records filed in this action. Defendants’ request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d).

Analysis

Defendants move the Court to vacate Assignee of Record SMS Financial XI, LLC (“Assignee”)’s renewal of the 1994 judgment in this action or, alternatively, to stay enforcement of the judgment on the ground that Assignee is a terminated Arizona limited liability company that is not registered to do business in California and does not have a license as required by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation such that it lacks the capacity, powers, rights, and privileges to renew a judgment and maintain a judgment enforcement action. Defendants also argue that each of the renewals of judgment violation Code of Civil Procedure section 683.160 because Defendants were not properly served.

A money judgment is enforceable for 10 years after the date of entry. (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.020.) “The judgment creditor may renew a judgment” for a period of 10 years “by filing an application for renewal with the court in which the judgment was entered” before the expiration of the 10-year period of enforceability. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 683.120, 683.130, subd. (a).) Code of Civil Procedure section 683.170, subdivision (a), provides that “[t]he renewal of a judgment . . . may be vacated on any ground that would be a defense to an action on the judgment,” and the judgment “shall be vacated if the application for renewal was filed within five years from the time the judgment was previously renewed under this article.” Code of Civil Procedure section 683.170, subdivision (b), allows a judgment debtor to apply by noticed motion for an order vacating the renewal of judgment “[n]ot later than 30 days after service of the notice of renewal.”

First, it is axiomatic that a notice of renewal of judgment must be served on the judgment debtor, either personally or by first class mail, and proof of service must be filed with the court clerk. (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.160, subd. (a).) However, “there is no statutory requirement that the notice of renewal be served on the judgment debtor in order for the renewal to be effective”; rather, the renewed judgment cannot be enforced until the notice of renewal has been served. (Goldman v. Simpson (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 255, 262, fn. 4.) Defendants contend that no enforcement proceedings may be initiated until the notice of renewal has been served, but this does not go to the validity of the renewal of the judgment.

Second, insofar as Defendants seek a stay of enforcement of the judgment, the Court’s disposition on the motion to vacate the renewal of judgment sufficiently determines whether the judgment can be enforced as a general matter, rendering any stay of enforcement unnecessary.

Third, Defendants argue that Assignee, an Arizona limited liability company, may not enforce the judgment because it is a terminated Arizona limited liability company that is not registered to do business in California. Notably, Corporations Code section 11707.02, cited by Defendants appears to apply to domestic limited liability companies, and even if it does apply to foreign limited liability companies like Assignee, Corporations Code section 17707.06, subdivision (a), allows a limited liability company that has filed a certificate of cancelation to exist for the purposes of prosecuting actions to collect and discharge its obligations. Further, Assignee cites to Arizona Revised Statutes section 29-3702, which also allows a limited liability company to prosecute actions while winding up its activities and affairs.

Defendants also argue that Assignee does not have a license as required by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation. Corporations Code section 17708.07, subdivision (a), provides that “[a] foreign limited liability company transacting intrastate business in this state shall not maintain an action or proceeding in this state unless it has a certificate of registration to transact intrastate business in this state.” Defendants provide no evidence that Assignee is engaged in intrastate business in California, and the mere initiation of litigation in this state does not compel a conclusion that Assignee is engaged in intrastate business. 

For these reasons, Defendants/Judgment Debtors Eric Cutujian and Roger Cutan’s Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment, or in the Alternative, for an Order to Stay Enforcement of Judgment is DENIED.

Evidentiary Objections

Assignee objects to certain statements within the declaration of David J. Hollander. The Court declines to rule on the objections, as the evidence at issue was not material to the Court’s ruling herein.