Judge Nathan Vu, Case 2017-00938484 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 2017-00938484, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Order to Show Cause re: Entry of Judgment

The court has carefully reviewed the prior minute orders and other filings of the court, and the proposed judgments, objections, additional briefing, and other filings of the parties.

The court ORDERS that Paragraph 3 of the [Proposed] Judgment of Defendant/Cross-Complainant Civic Financial Services, LLC (Civic) be deleted.

The court DENIES all other requests for modification of the [Proposed] Judgment.

The Court further ORDERS Civic to resubmit to the court the [Proposed] Judgment with the above modification so that judgment may be entered.

Prevailing Parties

On 05/12/2022, the court (by Judge Gregory H. Lewis) ruled that the Defendants were the prevailing parties on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint. The transcript of the proceedings and the minute order indicate that this was Judge Lewis’ intent.

The parties argue on the merits whether this ruling was supported by the law and evidence. However, this issue is not before the court. The court here seeks only to determine Judge Lewis’ rulings after the trial and which rulings should properly be contained in the judgment, not whether the rulings are supported by the law or evidence.

First and Second Cause of Action of the Cross-Complaint

The transcript of the proceedings from 05/12/2022 show and the parties agree that Judge Lewis determined that the first and second causes of action of the Cross-Complaint had been withdrawn with respect to Defendant/Cross-Defendant Alvin Brown (Brown) and Defendant/Cross-Defendant Timothy Smith (Smith).

However, the transcript of the proceedings shows that Judge Lewis ruled that Civic was entitled to the sum of $27,995 pursuant to the first cause of action for fraud and the eighth cause of action for violation of Penal Code section 496(c). Judge Lewis then appeared to withdraw his ruling that the damages were based upon the eighth cause of action of the Cross-Complaint and none of the parties contest this point.

Thus, the record shows that Judge Lewis ruled in favor of Civic and against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Martha Torres (Torres) on the first cause of action of the Cross-Complaint (for fraud) and awarded Civic the sum of $27,995.

With respect to the second cause of action of the Cross-Complaint (for negligent misrepresentation), the court could find nothing in the transcript or the minute order of 05/12/2022 to show that Judge Lewis ruled on that cause of action with respect to Torres. However, in her additional briefing, Torres concedes that “[t]he court found for CIVIC’s Defendant/Cross-Complaint [sic] for negligent misrepresentations” and that “[j]udgment should thus issue for Civic against Plaintiff on both the first and second causes of action in CIVIC’s Cross-Complaint.” (Plaintiff’s Martha Torres Br. re: Entry of Judgm. (ROA #1052 at p. 3:1-7.)

Torres argues that Civic failed to present “argument or evidence of damages.” However, the record reflects that Judge Lewis found that Torres had made certain misrepresentations and that he awarded damages of $27,995 for those misrepresentation. Whether those determinations are supported by argument or evidence is not before this court.

Off-Set of Amounts Awarded

Torres objected to paragraph 3 of Civic’s [Proposed] Judgment and Civic did not oppose the removal of this language.

Post-Judgment Interest

There is no dispute that Civic is entitled to post-judgment interest as a matter of law. (See Civil Proc. Code, § 685.010; County of Alameda v. Weatherford (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 666, 670.) Therefore, Paragraph 4 of Civic’s [Proposed] Judgment is proper.

TILA and RESPA Findings

In a previous version of her proposed judgment, Plaintiff sought to include a provision that: “The Court finds for the Defendant CIVIC in that there are no violations of TILA and no violations of RESPA as CIVIC is exempt from both of those sections.” (ROA #1027.) However, in the latest version of Plaintiff’s proposed judgment, which Plaintiff explicitly requested be the version of the judgment entered by the court, Plaintiff does not include this provision. (ROA #1029 & #1030.) The Court therefore deems the request withdrawn.

Even if the request was not withdrawn, the court would not grant it. The requested provision was not Judge Lewis’ ruling but part of the reasoning behind the ruling. A judgment should contain the court’s ultimate rulings and not the reasoning for those rulings.

Civic shall give notice of this ruling.