Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: LAM15K08385, Date: 2024-07-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: LAM15K08385 Hearing Date: July 30, 2024 Dept: 26
Hines v. 7219-7225 West Sunset, LLC, et al.
MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT
(CCP §§ 580, 585, 594)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant 7219-7225 West Sunset, LLC’s Motion to Vacate Judgment is DENIED.
ANALYSIS:
On July 6, 2015, Plaintiff Darnell Hines (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for violation of civil rights against Defendant 7219-7225 West Sunset, LLC (“Defendant”) Following Defendant’s failure to file a responsive pleading, the Court entered default judgment in Plaintiff’s favor on April 28, 2016. Plaintiff filed an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment on December 15, 2023.
Defendant filed the instant Motion to Vacate Judgment on June 14, 2024. Plaintiff filed an opposition on July 10, 2024 and Defendant replied on July 17, 2024.
Discussion
Request for Judicial Notice and Evidentiary Objections
Defendant moves for judicial notice of the following documents: (1) Verified Complaint for Damages, filed 07/06/2015 in this case; (2) Entry of default judgment for money damages, filed 04/28/2016 in this case; (3) Writ of execution issued by plaintiff Darnell Hines on 11/23/2022 in this case; (4) Sheriffs Deed of Sale of Real Property executed on October 13, 2023; (5) Article in the online publication "The Legal Advocate" reporting that one Darnell Hines was killed in a motor vehicle accident while driving a motorcycle on October 18, 2023; (6) Photograph purported to be that of plaintiff Darnell Hines riding a large, red motorcycle appearing in an online fundraiser for his seven children created October 23, 2023; (7) the Court’s registrar of actions in this case; (8) The Sheriffs Deed of Sale of (defendant's) Real Property recorded on November 3 6, 2023; (9) Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment as to 7219-7225 West Sunset LLC filed by judgment creditor Darnell Hines on 12/15/2023; (10) article in the online publication www.avpress.com reporting that Darnell Hines was killed in a motor vehicle accident while driving a motorcycle on October 18, 2023; and (11) Los Angeles County Medical Examiner's Report, Case No. 202314229, in which the Medical Examiner states the medical details and death of decedent Darnell Kina Hines that occurred in Lancaster, CA on October 18, 2023.
The request broadly cites Evidence Code sections 452 and 453 without specifying how those statutes apply to the attached documents. The request for judicial notice of the documents filed with the Court is granted only as to the filing of those documents but not as to the truth of the contents therein. (Evid. Code, § 452, sudb. (d); Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1560-1570.) The request for judicial notice of the articles in the online publications “The Legal Advocate” and www.avpress.com, and the following photograph are denied. No provision of Evidence Code sections 452 or 453 allows the Court to take judicial notice of facts in newspaper articles and case law specifically holds that such content does not qualify as “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (See People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1167.) Finally, Defendant’s request for judicial notice of the certified copy of the investigative report into the death of Darnell Kina Hines by the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner is also denied. Defendant has not demonstrated that Darnell Kina Hines is the same person as the named plaintiff in this action such that the investigative report is relevant.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s objections to the requests for judicial notice are sustained.
Death of Darnell Kina Hines
Defendant moves to vacate the writ of execution and Sheriff’s sale of property on the grounds that Plaintiff passed away on October 18, 2023. For the reasons discussed above, Defendant has not demonstrated that Plaintiff is deceased. Defendant has not provided an evidentiary basis for the Court to find that Darnell Kina Hines, who purportedly passed away on October 18, 2023, is the same person as the plaintiff in this action. Nor does Plaintiff’s lack of direct argument against this evidence operate as an admission of its truth. Defendant cites no authority for such a ruling. (See Reply, pp. 2:22-3:17.) Defendant also moves to vacate the judgment in this action on the grounds that Darnell Kina Hines was not disabled. Again, as there is no evidence that Darnell Kina Hines is the same person as the Plaintiff, the judgment shall not be vacated on this basis.
Code of Civil Procedure sections 580(a), 585(c), and 594(a)
Defendant alternatively moves to vacate the judgment and subsequent enforcement proceedings on the grounds that the Complaint fails to allege a specific amount of monetary damages. In the Complaint, “Plaintiff prays for no less than $4,000 in damages.” (Compl., p. 2:12-13.) Code of Civil Procedure section 580 states in relevant part: “The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subd (a).) Defendant does not explain how the prayer for damages violates this language. The Complaint seeks damages of at least $4,000.00 and the default judgment was for $4,000.00. The relief granted to Plaintiff, therefore, did not exceed the demand of the Complaint.
Defendant also cites Code of Civil Procedure section 585, subdivision (c) but that subdivision pertains to actions where the Summons and Complaint were served by publication. In any event, Defendant does not set forth or analyze the language from this statute or Code of Civil Procedure section 594. In opposition, Plaintiff cites cases involving the same language in the prayer for damages. In People ex rel. Lockyer v. Brar (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 659, the complaint requested “no less than” $1 million in civil penalties, and judgment was awarded in the amount of $1,787,500.00. (People ex rel. Lockyer v. Brar (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 659, 666.) The Court of Appeals ruled that the complaint gave fair warning of the extent of the defendant’s exposure in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 580. (Id. at 666-668.) Defendant’s reply does not address this case law. The Court of Appeals affirmed that due to the language in section 580, “in all default judgments the demand sets a ceiling on recovery.” (Finney v. Gomez (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 527, 534.) Defendant misreads the case holding to require the demand of the complaint to set a ceiling on recovery. This is not required by either section 580 or case law.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Defendant 7219-7225 West Sunset, LLC’s Motion to Vacate Judgment is DENIED.
Court clerk to give notice.