Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: BC411845, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC411845    Hearing Date: October 26, 2022    Dept: 55

CORBER v. SHAMOILZADEH                                                     BC411845

Hearing Date:  10/26/22,  Dept. 55

#9:   MOTION TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT AND TO VACATE, SET ASIDE AND/OR AMEND UNDERLYING JUDGMENT.

 

Notice:  Okay

No Opposition

 

MP:  Defendant RAMIN SHAMOILZADEH, a self-represented litigant.

RP:  

 

 

Summary

 

On 8/26/21, an Acknowledgement of Assignment of Judgment was filed, stating that Plaintiff Gil Corber assigned to Collect Co all right, title, and interest in the $53,231.00 Judgment filed on 04/18/2013.

On 8/4/22, the Court granted an unopposed Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Vacate Renewal of Judgment filed by defendant.

On 8/23/22, a notice of renewal of judgment was filed.

 

 

MP Positions

 

Moving party requests an order to vacate the renewal of judgment and to vacate, set aside and/or amend underlying judgment, on grounds including the following:

 

·         The judgment is void or was the produce of extrinsic fraud and mistake and a violation of due process, and so equitable relief therefrom should be ordered. C.C.P., Section 683.170.

·         Under no reasonable hypothesis is the Judgment’s imposition of a $20,000 penalty on the total sum due on a $15,000 debt a reasonable approximation of damages that would flow from failure to  pay a $2,000 installment.

·         The ex parte application for a renewal judgment did not provide evidence or proof that notice of the application had been given including email notice.

·         Plaintiff has the burden to show valid statutory service of the summons in order to establish the Court has jurisdiction.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

The unopposed motion is granted, as prayed.

The failure to file a proper and timely opposition in trial court creates a waiver of the issues on any appeal.  Bell v. Am. Title Ins. Co. (1991) 226 Cal. App. 3d 1589, 1602;  Cabrini Villas Homeowners Assn. v. Haghverdian (2003) 111 Cal. App. 4th 683, 693.  A judge in a civil case is not "'obligated to seek out theories [a party] might have advanced, or to articulate … that which … [a party] has left unspoken.'"  Mesecher v. County of San Diego (1992) 9 Cal. App. 4th 1677, 1686.