Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV02762, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02762    Hearing Date: April 6, 2023    Dept: R

The ex parte application is GRANTED.  At least from what plaintiff states, defendant perpetrated a deliberate fraud on the court.  The court held a bench trial on this UD case when defendant failed to appear and rendered its verdict from the bench in plaintiff’s favor.  However, shortly thereafter, defendant contacted the court and stated that the matter had been removed to federal court.  While this court had trouble understanding the grounds for federal jurisdiction, that is a decision for the federal district judge, not the state court.  Accordingly, the court recalled the judgment.  The court did so on the strength of defendant’s representation, even though no Notice of Removal had been received.  The case was then stayed.

Plaintiff now states that the case was never removed.  The federal court website, PACER, has no record of any removal of this case.  And this court has yet to receive a Notice of Removal.  It appears defendant simply lied.

While normally the court might consider that there is a lack of exigent circumstances, given the blatant fraud on the court an ex parte application will be entertained.

The one concession the court will make to the defense is this.  The court will hold the judgment until Friday, April 7, 2023 at noon.  If, during that time, defendant has something to say, defendant can say it.  Frankly, about the only thing that would change the court’s mind would be a file-stamped copy of the removal papers showing that the case was removed when defendant said it was, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that PACER is not properly reflecting the matter and defendant has simply not been diligent about filing a Notice of Removal in this court.