Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 22NWCP00153, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCP00153    Hearing Date: July 26, 2022    Dept: SEC


CASE NO.:  22NWCP00153

HEARING: 07/26/22






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.