Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: PC036281, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling
Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).
Case Number: PC036281 Hearing Date: January 13, 2023 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 1/13/23
Case #PC036281
MOTION TO AMEND
JUDGMENT
Motion filed on 10/18/22.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Creditor Fidelity
National Title Group, as assignee of Transnation
Title Insurance Company
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants/Judgment Debtors William Vargas dba J.V.M. Insurance Agent; Juan C. Vargas and
Miriam Murillo
RULING: The motion is denied without
prejudice.
On 2/10/05, Plaintiff Transnation Title Insurance Company
(Plaintiff) filed its complaint against Defendants William Vargas dba J.V.M.
Insurance Agent; Miriam S. Murillo and Juan C. Vargas (collectively,
Defendants) for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Unjust Enrichment, (3) Money Had
and Received, (4) Account Stated and (5) Breach of Implied Warranty. The amount of damages sought in the action
against the Defendants was $275,401.25 plus interest and attorney’s fees. (See Request for Judicial Notice (RJN),
Ex.1).
On 7/7/06, Default Judgment was entered in favor of
Plaintiff and against the Defendants. The amount of the default judgment was
$354,767.38 plus interest at the daily post-judgment rate of $78.79 from and
after 6/20/06. (RJN, Ex.2).
In 2011, $50,000.00 was recovered by Plaintiff on the
2006 Judgment. As a result, Plaintiff provided
credit to the judgment balance to the Defendants. On 2/3/11, the law firm Marcus, Watanabe
& Dave LLP as counsel for Defendant William Vargas filed an Acknowledgment
of Partial Satisfaction of Judgment. (RJN,
Ex.3).
On 5/17/16, Plaintiff’s counsel, The Guerrini Law Firm, filed
an Application and Renewal of Judgment (Application). (RJN, Ex.4).
Moving Party Fidelity National Title Group (Fidelity), represented by
attorney Karen A. Ragland, contends that due to clerical error, the amount of
the renewed judgment set forth on the Application was incorrect because it indicated
that the amount of the 2006 Judgment was only $35,476.38, not $354,767.38. Fidelity further claims that due to this
inadvertent error, the amount of the accrued interest indicated on the
Application is also inaccurate because it was calculated using the wrong amount. Further, Fidelity notes that the Application
does not show the credit amount of $50,000.00.
Fidelity contends that the Application should have shown the amount of
the renewed judgment to be $589,987.18,
not $69,427.63.
Therefore, on 10/18/22, Fidelity as assignee of
Transnation Title Insurance Company filed the instant motion seeking an order
amending the Renewed Judgment dated 5/17/16 to include the correct amount of the original judgment
entered on 7/7/06 against Defendants/Judgment Debtors William Vargas dba J.V.M.
Insurance Agent; Juan C. Vargas and Miriam Murillo.
Fidelity’s Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) is
granted.
Citing Exhibit A to the declaration of attorney Karen A. Ragland,
Fidelity claims that pursuant to an agreement dated 8/9/17, on 1/29/18, Plaintiff assigned the Renewed Judgment to GSFNT
Recovery, LLC. However, Exhibit A to the
Ragland declaration shows that on 1/29/18, Fidelity, as successor in interest
to Plaintiff “Translation [sic] Title Insurance Company” assigned the Judgment
to GSFNT Recovery Fund, LLC. (See
Ragland Decl. ¶6, Ex.A). Citing Exhibit
B to the Ragland declaration, Fidelity claims that, also pursuant to an
agreement dated 8/9/17, on 7/12/22, GSFNT Recovery, LLC assigned the Judgment
to Fidelity. (See Ragland Decl.
¶7, Ex.B). Fidelity fails to mention the
Assignment of Judgment filed on 5/26/22 which indicates that, also pursuant to
an agreement dated 8/9/17, Fidelity assigned the Judgment/Renewed Judgment to
GSFNT Recovery Fund, LLC on 5/18/22.
There is currently no direct evidence before the Court
that Plaintiff ever assigned the Judgment and/or Renewed Judgment. Additionally, there is no valid evidence to
support Fidelity’s claim that there was a “typographical error” in the
Application For And Renewal of Judgment as there is not a declaration from
attorney John D. Guerrini who filed the Application. The statement in the declaration of attorney
Ragland that “[i]t is clear that the Renewed Judgment is incorrect due to a
typographical error on the Application” is insufficient as there is no evidence
that attorney Ragland had any involvement with the Application. (Ragland Decl. ¶8). It is also not clear how the three purported
assignments mentioned above were all pursuant to agreements entered on the same
date in 2017. Further, if Fidelity was
assigned the Judgment/Renewed Judgment from Plaintiff in 2018, after the
purported typographical error, it is not clear if Fidelity’s assignment was
based on a purchase based on the 2006 Judgment amount or the Renewed Judgment
amount and/or whether Fidelity would be obtaining a windfall if the relief is
granted. As such, the Court finds that a
declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel attesting to the typographical error is
necessary and notice of the motion should have been provided to the original
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Transnation Title Insurance Company.
There are also issues with the service of the motion on
Defendants. The proof of service
attached to the motion indicates that it was served by mail on Aida E. Vargas
and Mario Francisco Vargas, who are not parties to this action, at 1344 Kismet
Avenue, Sylmar, California 91342-3204.
An amended proof of service filed on 10/21/22 indicates that the motion
was served by mail on Defendants at 15318 Parthenia Street, North Hills,
California 91343. However, the Notice of
Acknowledgment of Assignment of Judgment filed on 5/26/22 indicates the address
for Defendants William Vargas and Miriam S. Murillo is 13501 Branford Street,
Arleta, California 91331 and the address for Defendant Juan C. Vargas is 8503
Tobias Avenue, Apt. 36, Panorama City, California 91402. (See 5/25/22 Notice of Acknowledgment,
p.1:26-p.2:1). As such, it appears that
Defendants should have also been served with the motion at these
addresses. Also, as noted above, on
2/3/11, an Acknowledgment of Partial Satisfaction of Judgment was filed on
behalf of Defendant William Vargas by David. M. Marcus of the law firm Marcus,
Watanbe & Dave, LLP. Therefore, the
Court finds that this firm should have also been served with the motion.