Judge Mark E. Windham, Case LAM06K10904 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: LAM06K10904, Date: 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: LAM06K10904 Hearing Date: March 28, 2023 Dept: 26

Unifund CCR Partners v. Khorrami, et al.

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE
(CCP § 418.10, 473.5)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Judgment Debtor Fariborz Khorrami’s Motion to Quash Service and Dismissal of Action is CONTINUED TO MAY 30, 2023 AT 10:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. BY MAY 16, 2023, JUDGMENT DEBTOR IS TO FILE AND SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION WITH EVIDENCE OF HIS EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYER’S ADDRESS AT THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WERE SERVED. JUDGMENT ASSIGNEE IS TO FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE BY MAY 23, 2023.

ANALYSIS:

On July 13, 2006, Plaintiff Unifund CCR Partners (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Fariborz Khorrami (“Judgment Debtor”). Plaintiff filed a proof of substitute service of the Summons and Complaint on July 28, 2006. Following no response to the Complaint, default judgment was entered against Judgment Debtor on October 24, 2006. The judgment was renewed on November 17, 2014 and December 22, 2022.

Judgmen Debtor filed the instant Motion to Quash Service and Dismissal of Action on February 21, 2023. Judgment Assignee PMGI, LLC (“Judgment Assignee”) filed an opposition on February 28, 2023 and Judgment Debtor replied on March 9, 2023.

Discussion

Judgment Debtor brings the instant Motion pursuant to Code of Civil Proceduree section 418.10 and 473.5. The Court is aware of no authority that permits a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 post-judgment and post-renewal of judgment. Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 can only be brought up to two years post-judgment. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5, subd. (a).) Therefore, neither statute is grounds for relief with respect to a judgment entered more than 15 years ago.

Alternatively, Judgment Debtor argues that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them because of the lack of proper service. “California is a jurisdiction where the original service of process, which confers jurisdiction, must conform to statutory requirements or all that follows is void.” (Honda Motor Co. v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1048.) There is no time limit on when a void judgment can be challenged. (Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pyle (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 513, 526 [citing Falahati v. Kondo (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 823, 830; Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d)].) This is also grounds to vacate the renewal of judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 683.170, subdivision (a), which states, “[t]he renewal of a judgment pursuant to this article may be vacated on any ground that would be a defense to an action on the judgment.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.170, subd. (a).)

The proof of service indicates that Judgment Debtor was sub-served at 831 S. Crocker Street, #A, Los Angeles, California. (Motion, Exh. 1, ¶¶4-5.) Judgment Debtor was purportedly served on July 21, 2006, by leaving the papers with “John Doe, Manager.” (Id. at ¶5.) In support of the Motion, Judgment Debtor submits a declaration stating that they never worked or lived at the Crocker Street address. (Motion, Khorrami Decl., ¶2.) No additional details are provided in the Motion or supporting declaration about the service address. In opposition, Judgment Assignee contends that the Crocker Street address was for Judgment Debtor’s employer, Royal S& F Fabric. (Opp., Kenosian Decl., ¶5.) Judgment Debtor replies that he worked for Royal F & S Fabric only until 2001, and never at the Crocker Street address. (Reply, Khorrami Decl., ¶3.)

Judgment Assignee has failed to show that the address where Judgment Debtor was sub-served was their “dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address” as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).) The opposition points only to Plaintiff’s unsuccessful attempt to serve an earnings withholding order on Judgment Debtor’s employer (Royal S & F Fabric). (Opp., Kenosian Decl., ¶8.) This does not prove that Judgment Debtor was employed by Royal S & F Fabric at the time of the purported service in 2006, or that their employment had any connection to the Crocker Street address.

However, in this Motion, the burden falls to Judgment Debtor to show entitlement to relief by a preponderance of the evidence. (See Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 199.) Judgment Debtor’s declaration alone, disavowing connection to the Crocker Street address, is insufficient to carry this burden. Moreover, Judgment Debtor’s further evidence was not provided until the reply, which deprived Judgment Assignee an opportunity to address it.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Judgment Debtor Fariborz Khorrami’s Motion to Quash Service and Dismissal of Action is CONTINUED TO MAY 30, 2023 AT 10:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. BY MAY 16, 2023, JUDGMENT DEBTOR IS TO FILE AND SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION WITH EVIDENCE OF HIS EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYER’S ADDRESS AT THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WERE SERVED. JUDGMENT ASSIGNEE IS TO FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE BY MAY 23, 2023.

Moving party to give notice.