Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: LAM14K10197, Date: 2024-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: LAM14K10197    Hearing Date: March 6, 2024    Dept: 26

Douglas v. Hsu, et al.

MOTION TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

Judgment Debtor Taylor Kuo-Tai Hsu’s Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On February 20, 20215 Plaintiff Toby Douglas, Director of the Department for Health Care Services (“Judgment Creditor”) obtained a judgment against Defendant Taylor Kuo-Tai Hsu (“Judgment Debtor”). The judgment was renewed on November 7, 2023.

Judgment Debtor filed the instant Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment on January 15, 2024. Judgment Creditor filed an opposition on February 22, 2024 and Judgment Debtor replied on February 26, 2024.

Discussion

First, the Motion is not accompanied by any proof of service demonstrating that the moving papers or notice of the hearing date were served on Judgment Creditor. Failure to give notice of a motion is not only a violation of the statutory requirements but of due process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005; Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.) Judgment Creditor, however, has filed a substantive opposition and thereby waives any defect in notice.

Second, the Motion does not provide any legal authority for the requested relief from the renewal of judgment or order directing Judgment Creditor to consider an application for hardship.  “The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(b).) Indeed, Judgment Debtor’s failure to provide a memorandum as required by the Rule is an “admission that the [request] is without merit and cause for its denial.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(a), (b); In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 964, 976.) It is not until the reply that Judgment Debtor provides legal authority, citing to California Welfare and Institutions Code section 14009.5. This statute, however, does not speak to the Court’s authority to order Judgment Creditor to reduce the lien amount or reconsider the hardship waiver. (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, § 14009.5, subd. (c)(1) [“The department shall waive its claim, in whole or in part, if it determines that enforcement of the claim would result in substantial hardship to other dependents, heirs, or survivors of the individual against whose estate the claim exists.”].)

Finally, it appears that the Motion is brought by Judgment Debtor’s daughter, which is not permitted. (Cal. Bus. & Profs. Code, § 6125.) Judgment Debtor may only appear in propria persona, or through a licensed attorney. (See J.W. v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 958, 965.)

Conclusion

Judgment Debtor Taylor Kuo-Tai Hsu’s Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.