Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 20STCP00261 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@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.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

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.

Judgment Debtor Nathaniel D. Hayes’ Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment is DENIED.

On January 16, 2020, Judgment Creditor CitiBank, NA (“Judgment Creditor”) filed an Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister State Judgment based on a judgment from Indiana. The Court entered judgment the same day against Judgment Debtor Nathaniel D. Hayes (“Judgment Debtor”). The Application for Entry of Sister-State Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment were personally served on Judgment Debtor on August 25, 2022. (Proof of Service, filed 10/10/22.) On October 12, 2022, Judgment Debtor filed the instant Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment. Judgment Creditor filed an opposition on October 28, 2022.

The Motion was initially set for hearing on November 10, 2022 and continued to December 19, 2022 by the Court with instruction to Judgment Debtor to give notice to Judgment Creditor. (Minute Order, 11/10/22.) No notice of the hearing date has been filed to date.

Even assuming proper service of the notice of hearing, the Motion is substantively flawed. The Motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1710.40, subdivision (a), which provides that a judgment entered based on a sister state judgment “may be vacated on any ground which would be a defense to an action in this state on the sister state judgment.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1710.40, subd. (a).) Code of Civil Procedure section 1710.40, subdivision (b) provides that “[n]ot later than 30 days after service of notice of entry of judgment . . . the judgment debtor, on written notice to the judgment creditor, may make a motion to vacate the judgment under this section.” “The party moving under section 1710.40 to set aside the sister state judgment has ‘the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence why it was entitled to relief. [Citation.]’” (Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal. App. 4th 831, 841.) “As long as the sister state court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, a sister state judgment is entitled to full faith and credit ‘even as to matters of law or fact erroneously decided.’” (Bank of America v. Jennett (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 104, 118.)

First, a party moving to vacate a sister-state judgment must file a motion “[n]ot later than 30 days after service of notice of entry of judgment pursuant to Section 1710.30.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1710.40, subd. (b).) Here, Judgment Creditor served the Notice of Entry of Sister-State Judgment by personal service on August 25, 2022. The instant Motion, therefore, had to be filed by September 24, 2022. The Motion was not filed until October 12, 2022 and is not timely under the moving statute.

Second, the Motion does not show any ground that would be a defense to an action in this state on a sister state judgment, as provided for by Code of Civil Procedure section 1710.40, subdivision (a).

In elaborating on the defense available Code Civ. Proc. under section 1710.40, the Law Revision Commission makes the following comment: ‘Common defenses to enforcement of the sister state judgment include the following: the judgment is not final and unconditional (where finality means that no further action by the court rendering the judgment is necessary to resolve the matter litigated); the judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud; the judgment was rendered in excess of jurisdiction; the judgment is not enforceable in the state of rendition; the plaintiff is guilty of misconduct; the judgment has already been paid; suit on the judgment is barred by the statute of limitations in the state where enforcement is sought.’ (19A West's Ann.Codes (1982) p. 694; accord: 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed.1971) Enforcement of Judgment, 194–195, pp. 3549–3550; Rest.2d Conf. of Laws, 103–121.) (World Wide Imports, Inc. v. Bartel, supra, 145 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1009–1010, 193 Cal.Rptr. 830.)

(Traci & Marx Co. v. Legal Options, Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 155, 158–159.) Judgment Debtor argues that they were not served with the Indiana state action. While lack of proper service arguably deprived the Indiana court of jurisdiction over Judgment Debtor and would be grounds to vacate the Entry of Sister State Judgment, Judgment Debtor’s evidence is insufficient. (See Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 839.) The judgment in the Indiana court states on its face that Judgment Debtor was duly served with process. (Opp., Hsu Decl., Exh. 1.) The Motion is supported solely by Judgment Debtor’s own conclusory declaration of lack of service. (Motion, Hayes Decl., ¶2.) This fails to carry Judgment Debtor’s burden of proof to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that they were not served with the necessary papers in the Indiana action. No information or evidence regarding service of the Indiana court action or how said service failed to meet the test for jurisdiction in that state is included in support of the Motion. (Ibid.) Nor are any facts provided to support Judgment Debtor’s contention that they were not served with the Application for Entry of Sister-State Judgment or Notice of Entry of the Same. (Motion, Hayes Decl., ¶2.) By itself, such a conclusory and self-serving declaration cannot demonstrate lack of service or a basis to vacate the judgment. (See Cruz v. Fagor America, Inc. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 488, 509 [citing Rios v. Singh (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 871, 885].)

Based on the foregoing, Judgment Debtor Nathaniel D. Hayes’ Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment is DENIED.