Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: BC340196, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC340196 Hearing Date: January 21, 2025 Dept: 40
BC340196
Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Pearson, LLP v. Lydia Harris, et al.
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER DENYING MOTION BY DEFENDANT, DERMOT GIVENS, TO VOID ORDER
This action, filed on September 21, 2005, alleges contract
related claims, fraud, and equitable claims. Judgment was entered on April 30, 2008,
in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, Dermot Damien Givens, who filed
this motion on December 4, 2024.
Defendant moves to void “all orders” entered in this case because
the court lacked jurisdiction to act because of the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filing
by Defendant, Lydia Harris, on May 17, 1996. The stay has never been lifted.
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has moved to
vacate numerous times without success over the last 14 years. Plaintiff seeks
sanctions against Defendant pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7 for the bad
faith filing of his serial, redundant, and meritless motions. This court
acknowledged when it denied Defendant’s ex parte application to void orders that
the Harris bankruptcy is irrelevant, and the Court of Appeal and the US
District Bankruptcy Court have reached the same conclusion.
In reply, Defendant reiterates that the court did not have
jurisdiction to orders because of the bankruptcy stay.
This court has already determined as recently as November 13,
2024, that Lydia Harris’ bankruptcy proceeding is irrelevant to this action.
Other courts have concluded the same. (Opp. Ex. B.) Defendant has not cited any
authority permitting the court to revisit this issue that has already been
finally determined by the Court of Appeal and the U.S. District Bankruptcy
Court.
Accordingly,
the motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s
request for sanctions under Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7 is DENIED as the sanction
motion must be separately made, and must meet the procedural requirements of
that section. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 128.7 subd. (c)(1).