Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 19STCV20639, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV20639    Hearing Date: December 5, 2023    Dept: 28

Having considered the petitioning papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On June 12, 2019, Plaintiff Joshua Seth Hernandez, by and through his guardian ad litem Dalia Gamboa (“Plaintiff”), filed this action against Defendants Peco Foods, Inc. (“Peco”), Sergio David Gonzalez Flores (“Flores”), Daphne P. Wilkerson, Richard Wilkerson aka Rickey Wilkerson, and Does 1-160 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.  

On November 1, 2019, Defendants B. Richard Wilkerson, erroneously sued and served as Richard Wilkerson, and Daphne P. Wilkerson filed an answer. 

On November 18, 2019, the Court found that case numbers BC667551 and 19STCV20639 (this case) are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).  Case number BC667551 became the lead case. For good cause shown, the cases were assigned to Department 4A at Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes. 

On January 13, 2020, Department 4A moved to the 8th Floor of the Spring Street Courthouse and was renamed Department 28.  This case is assigned to Department 28. 

On February 18, 2020, Peco filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants D&B Foods Inc. (“D&B Foods”) and Does 1-10 for equitable indemnity, equitable contribution, and declaratory relief. 

On September 25, 2020, the clerk entered the default of “Cross-Complainant D&B Foods Inc.” at Peco’s request. 

On September 3, 2021, the Court dismissed Peco’s cross-complaint without prejudice at Peco’s request. 

On February 7, 2022, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Daphne P. Wilkerson and Richard Wilkerson aka Rickey Wilkerson with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On May 26, 2022, the Court entered judgment in favor of Peco against Plaintiff. 

On June 1, 2022, the Court dismissed Flores without prejudice from Plaintiff’s complaint at Plaintiff’s request. 

On November 7, 2023, Petitioner Dalia Gamboa (“Petitioner”) filed a petition to approve the compromise of Plaintiff’s action against Peco, to be heard on December 5, 2023. 

PETITIONER’S REQUEST 

Petitioner Dalia Gamboa asks the Court to approve the compromise of Plaintiff Joshua Seth Hernandez’s action against Peco Foods, Inc. 

DISCUSSION 

“Subject matter jurisdiction is a fundamental requirement for judicial consideration of claims.”  (Saffer v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1239, 1248 (Saffer).) “ ‘The California Supreme Court has defined subject matter jurisdiction thusly: “Subject matter jurisdiction . . . is the power of the court over a cause of action or to act in a particular way.” [Citations.]  By contrast, the lack of subject matter jurisdiction means the entire absence of power to hear or determine a case; i.e., an absence of authority over the subject matter. [Citations.]  Where the evidence is not in dispute, a determination of subject matter jurisdiction is a legal question subject to de novo review.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Dial 800 v. Fesbinder (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 32, 42.) 

“Subject matter jurisdiction may not be ‘ “ ‘conferred by consent, waiver, agreement, acquiescence, or estoppel.’ ” ’ [Citation.]” (Saffer, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 1248.) “ ‘ “[T]he adequacy of the court's subject matter jurisdiction must be addressed whenever that issue comes to the court's attention.” [Citation.]’” (Ibid.) “ ‘[A]ny judgment or order rendered by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is “void on its face . . . .”[Citation.]’ ” (Ibid., quoting Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 196.) 

“A judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties in an action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 577.) “ ‘It is elementary that where a tribunal has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, the jurisdiction continues until a final judgment is entered.’ ” (Diamond Heights Village Assn., Inc. v. Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corp. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 290, 305, quoting Riley v. Superior Court (1957) 49 Cal.2d 305, 309 [“The court lost jurisdiction over Financial Freedom once judgment was entered in its favor”].) 

Here, the Court entered judgment in favor of Peco and against Plaintiff on May 26, 2022.  On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff appealed the judgment.  On December 16, 2022, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal at Plaintiff’s request and issued the remittitur.  

The Court CONTINUES the hearing on the petition to give the parties an opportunity to provide legal authority, if any, showing that the Court has jurisdiction to rule on the petition to approve the compromise of Plaintiff’s action against Peco. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court CONTINUES the hearing on the petition filed by Petitioner Dalia Gamboa to approve the compromise of Plaintiff Joshua Seth Hernandez’s action against Defendant Peco Foods, Inc. to January 5, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Petitioner Dalia Gamboa and/or Peco Foods, Inc. may submit supplemental legal authority (if any) by January 2, 2024 showing that, despite the entry of judgment on May 26, 2022, the Court has jurisdiction to rule on the petition to approve the compromise of Plaintiff Joshua Seth Hernandez's action against Defendant Peco Foods, Inc. 

Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Petitioner is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.