Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: LAM13K02296, Date: 2023-10-18 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.

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND DISMISS DEFENDANT

(CCP § 473(a)(1))

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Reinstate Expired Judgment and Renew Judgment is DENIED.

On February 28, 2013, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Todarian Williams (“Defendant Williams”) and Antionette Shannon (“Defendant Shannon”). Following Defendants’ failure to file responsive pleadings, the Court entered default judgment in Plaintiff’s favor on July 16, 2013.

On June 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Application for Renewal of Judgment with respect to Defendant Williams; the judgment was renewed on June 28, 2023. On August 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reinstate Expired Judgment and Renew Judgment. No opposition has been filed to date.

Plaintiff brings the instant Motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 187, which states in relevant part:

When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 187.) Plaintiff contends that its filing service inadvertently labeled the application for renewal of judgment with respect to Defendant Shannon as “duplicate” such that it was never filed. (Motion, Reese Decl., ¶¶2-6 and Exh. A.) Although the Motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 187, Plaintiff offers no analysis or supporting authority to address how this language permits the Court to reinstate an expired judgment. (Motion, pp. 2:10-3:6.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 187 is addressed to the Court’ inherent powers and the Court of Appeal has held that authority makes “clear that the concept relates primarily to procedural matters, typically to control the court’s own process, proceedings and orders, but also may relate to situations in which the rights and powers of the parties have been established by substantive law or court order but workable means by which those rights may be enforced or powers implemented have not been granted by statute.” (Topa Ins. Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1344.)

The Motion does not address the Court’s jurisdiction to issue orders after a judgment has expired, let alone an order reinstating a judgment beyond the renewal period. Nor does the Motion address generally what rights a party has following the expiry of a judgment, or specifically, where there has been a filing error with respect to an application for renewal of judgment and the time for renewal has expired. Therefore, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that it has established rights and powers, nor that the Court has jurisdiction, such that the Court should adopt a process or other workable means to reinstate the judgment as to Defendant Shannon.

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Reinstate Expired Judgment and Renew Judgment is DENIED.