Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 22NWCP00153, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22NWCP00153 Hearing Date: July 26, 2022 Dept: SEC
SUNZ INSURANCE
SOLUTIONS, LLC v. JOSE VAZQUEZ
CASE NO.: 22NWCP00153
HEARING: 07/26/22
JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES
#3
TENTATIVE ORDER
Defendant Jose Vasquez’s motion to vacate judgment is DENIED.
CCP § 1710.40.
Moving Party to give notice.
JUDICIAL NOTICE
is taken of Plaintiff’s exhibits. (Evid. Code 452.)
CCP § 1710.40(a) provides that a
judgment entered based on a sister state judgment “may be vacated on any ground
which would be a defense to an action in this state on the sister state
judgment.” (Traci & Marx Co. v. Legal Options, Inc. (2005) 126
Cal.App.4th 155, 158–159, italics added.) It further provides that “[n]ot
later than 30 days after service of notice of entry of judgment . . . the
judgment debtor, on¿written notice to the judgment creditor, may make a motion
to vacate the judgment under this section.” (CCP § 1710.40.) “The party
moving under section 1710.40 to set aside the sister state judgment has ‘the
burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence why it was entitled to relief.
[Citation.]’” (Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc.
(2013) 221 Cal. App. 4th 831, 841.) “As long as the sister state court had
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, a sister state judgment
is entitled to full faith and credit ‘even as to matters of law or fact
erroneously decided.’” (Bank of America v. Jennett¿(1999) 77
Cal.App.4th 104, 118,)
The Court finds the instant motion is timely pursuant to CCP
§1710.40(a). However, the Court does not find that Defendant has met his burden
in showing that he has a viable defense. Defendant’s motion merely states that
the Guaranty required Defendant to waive his right to a jury trial and in
California, the right to a jury cannot be waived by contract. (Motion at pp.
1-2.) However, in opposition, Plaintiff has shown that Defendant did not demand
a jury trial or challenge the Guaranty’s mandatory forum selection clause.
(Opposition at pg. 5, RJN, Exh. B.)
Moreover, California’s public policy favoring jury trial is not basis to
vacate a sister-state judgment pursuant to CCP § 1710.40. (See World Wide
Imports, Inc. v. Bartel (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1011; see also R.S.
v. Pacificare Life & Health Ins. Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 192, 207 [“California
law is clear that the differing public policy or laws of the enforcing state
cannot contravene the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. As has
been repeatedly stated, California must, regardless of policy objections,
recognize the judgment of another state as res judicata.”]) Thus, Defendant’s
motion to vacate judgment is denied.