Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 20STLC08458, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STLC08458 Hearing Date: March 22, 2023 Dept: 26
MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENTS
(CCP
§§ 473(d), 665)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant AMLI
Management Company’s Motion to Vacate Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation is
GRANTED. THE JUDGMENTS ENTERED ON JUNE 2, 2022 ARE HEREBY VACATED AND THE
ACTION IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiffs Tanya Holman, Julia Audrey Iliescu, Pawel Janowski and
Derek Stricker (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action for violations of the
California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act against Defendant AMLI
Management Company (“Defendant”) on October 6, 2020. Defendant filed an Answer
on November 19, 2020.
On September 15, 2021, the Court
granted Plaintiff Stricker’s
motion to compel Defendant’s responses to request for production of documents
and request for monetary sanctions. (Minute Order, 09/15/21.) The Court ordered
Defendant to serve responses to the discovery and pay monetary sanctions within
20 days’ notice of the order. (Ibid.) On January 27, 2022, the Court
granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions against Defendant for
failure to comply with the prior discovery order. (Minute Order, 01/27/22.) The
Court struck Defendant’s Answer and entered its default. (Ibid.)
On March 4,
2022, Plaintiffs filed a request for default judgment in the amount of
$100,000.00 but the Court entered judgment in the amount of $25,000.00 pursuant
to its jurisdictional limits. (Default judgment, entered 03/04/22.) On March 9,
2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to vacate the judgment
and allow for entry of default judgment as to each Plaintiff, according to
proof. (Minute Order, 03/09/22.) On March 21, 2022, the Court entered default
judgments in the amount of $25,000.00 on behalf of each Plaintiff. (Default
judgments, entered 03/21/22.)
On April 21,
2022, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal.
On May 2,
2022, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to “Vacate Judgments and Enter
New Judgments without Punitive Damages.” The Court denied the ex parte
application but set the matter for noticed hearing on June 2, 2022. (Minute
Order, 05/03/22.) The Motion to Vacate Judgments and Enter New Judgments was
granted on June 2, 2022. (Minute Order, 06/02/22.)
On January 24,
2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Vacate Judgments Pursuant to
Stipulation. Defendant simultaneously filed a stipulation to set aside
judgments. No opposition to the Motion has been filed to date.
Discussion
Defendant moves for an order
vacating the judgments pursuant to the Court’s inherent power under Code of
Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a). The Motion is alternatively
brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).
Relief under this statute, however, is unavailable because the Motion was
brought more than six months after entry of the new judgments on June 2, 2022.
The six-month deadline under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision
(b) is jurisdictional and not subject to tolling. (Manson, Iver & York
v. Black (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 36, 42.) Furthermore, there is a split of
authority regarding relief from terminating sanctions under this statute. (See Hossain
v. Hossain (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 454, 458; compare Rodriguez v. Brill
(2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 715, 720.) In any event, the Court does not reach the
merits of that argument.
Code of Civil Procedure section
128, subdivision (a) provides that the Court has the power
(8) To amend and
control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice.
An appellate court shall not reverse or vacate a duly entered judgment upon an
agreement or stipulation of the parties unless the court finds both of the
following:
(A) There is no
reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be
adversely affected by the reversal.
(B) The reasons of
the parties for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that
may result from the nullification of a judgment and the risk that the
availability of stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial
settlement.”
(Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 128, subd. (a)(8).) It is not clear whether a trial court is bound by the
same factors to vacate a judgment pursuant to stipulation, but Defendant
demonstrates that the requirements are met in this case. Specifically, the
judgments in this action do not involve any non-party or the public. Nor were
the default judgments on the merits of the action, such that public trust would
be eroded if they are vacated. The judgments were the result of defense
counsel’s failure to attend to discovery this action and not a reflection of
the merits of Defendant’s defense. (Motion, Williamson Decl., ¶¶14-16.)
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Defendant AMLI Management Company’s
Motion to Vacate Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation is GRANTED. THE JUDGMENTS
ENTERED ON JUNE 2, 2022 ARE HEREBY VACATED AND THE ACTION IS DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
Moving party to give notice.