Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22SMCV02361, Date: 2024-12-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02361    Hearing Date: December 4, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On November 11, 2022, Plaintiff Sally Maslon (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Hans Overturf (“Overturf”) and Sisu Holding Company, Inc. (“Sisu”) for (1) breach of fiduciary duty (2) financial elder abuse, (3) undue influence, (4) breach of oral contract, and (5) negligence.

Overturf was allegedly Plaintiff’s financial planner, money manager, option trader, crypto currency trader, and a stock, equity, commodity, and securities investor. (Complaint ¶ 2.) Plaintiff claims Overturf mismanaged her money, causing her to lose approximately $252,000. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-13.)

On May 9, 2023, the Court entered default against Overturf. On June 26, 2023, Overturf filed a motion to set aside the default on the grounds that he has not resided at the Eureka, California service address since 2015, when he moved to Switzerland. On July 24, 2023, the Court denied Overturf’s motion to set aside the default on the grounds that Overturf’s declaration lacked credibility in light of the contrary evidence Plaintiff provided demonstrating that Overturf resided at the Eureka address at the time of service.

Thereafter, the Court entered default judgment against Overturf on January 23, 2024, and issued a writ of execution on the same date.  Overturf moved again to set aside the default and the default judgment, which the Court denied on June 5, 2024. 

Overturf subsequently moved to stay enforcement of the judgment pending appeal, which the Court denied on August 22, 2024.

Overturf appealed the judgment, which the appellate court dismissed due to default on September 5, 2024.  Overturf now moves this Court for an order reinstating his appeal.  Plaintiff opposes the motion and Overturf replies.

ANALYSIS

            As Plaintiff points out in the opposition, Overturf has not provided any authority granting this Court jurisdiction or authority to reinstate Plaintiff’s appeal. 

            In reply, Overturf clarifies that he improperly filed his motion in this Court, but has since filed it with the Court of Appeal, and “no further action is required by this Court regarding the Motion to Reinstate Appeal.”

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies Overturf’s motion to reinstate appeal, as this Court lacks jurisdiction or authority to rule on it. 

The Clerk of the Court shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling.    

DATED:  December 4, 2024                                                  ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court