Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case Number: 23PDSC00944, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ralph C. Hofer, Case: 23PDSC00944, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PDSC00944 Hearing Date: January 19, 2024 Dept: D

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 10

Date: 1/19/2024

Case No: 23 PDSC00944

Case Name: Mejia v. Greater LA Auto Center

MOTION TO VACATE (CANCEL) JUDGMENT

Moving Party: Defendant Greater LA Auto Center, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Rodolfo Mejia

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Cancel judgment entered against defendant in this case

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff Rodolfo Mejia brings this small claim action alleging that defendant Greater LA Auto Center, Inc. owes plaintiff money in the sum of $10,000 because defendant paid off plaintiff’s loan amount of $5,700 and evaluated his Honda Civil for $9,800 as his trade in value, and in the same transaction defendant sold plaintiff a used Volkswagen GTI for $12,166. Plaintiff claims that when he drove the car off the lot the check engine light turned on, and there followed a six-month period of empty promises, excuses and run around answers.

On June 21, 2023, the matter went to a small claims court trial before attorney Lee Marshall, Temporary Judge. The evidence was submitted, both parties testified, and defendant informed the Court that there was a Civil Unlimited case filed in Glendale, LASC Case number 23GDCV00917, currently assigned to Department D. Both sides rested, argued and submitted the matter to the court. The court took the matter under submission and later ruled that the case was related to the unlimited case and ordered defendant to file an application and order to transfer case as a related case to the unlimited case, and to file a notice of related case in the other matter.

On August 31, 2023, the court granted defendant’s application and order for transfer, and ordered the case transferred to the Glendale court to be heard with the related case assigned to Department D.

On October 10, 2023, the court, Judge Hofer presiding, found that the two cases were related and the cases were assigned to Department D for all purposes. The minute order states:

“Hearing—Other Order to Show Cause/Non-Jury Trial is continued to 11/28/2023 at 8:30 AM in Department D at Glendale Courthouse.

The defendant is ordered to appear on 11/28/2023 at 8:30 a.m.”

[Minute Order 10/10/2023].

The clerk was ordered to give notice. A certificate of mailing was filed by the clerk on October 10, 2023, showing the minute order was served by mail on plaintiff and defendant at their addresses of record.

On November 28, 2023, the cause was called for Court Trial at 10:10 AM. There was no appearance by or for Greater LA Auto Center, Inc. The court found that notice was proper, and submitted Court’s Exhibit 1, the Minute Order and Certificate of Mailing Dated 10/10/2023. The court also found that venue was proper.

Plaintiff was sworn and testified on his own behalf, and submitted five exhibits, which were marked and admitted in evidence. Plaintiff submitted closing argument, the matter was submitted to the court for ruling, and later the same day the court ordered judgment entered for plaintiff against defendant for the principal amount of $9,800, interest of $574.58, and costs of $75 for a total of $10,449.58. The minute order states:

“The Court's finds re: damages: Defendant sold plaintiff's Honda for $14,000.00 minus plaintiff's loan balance for Honda of $5,700.00 that defendant paid off, plus $1,500.00 loan plaintiff took out to purchase a new vehicle for a total of $9,800.00 in damages.”

[Minute Order 11/28/2023].

Notice of entry of Judgment was filed and served by the clerk on November 28, 2023.

On December 21, 2023, defendant filed a Notice of Motion to Vacate (Cancel) Judgment. A hearing date was scheduled for 01/19/2023, and the clerk gave notice by mail to both parties.

ANALYSIS:

Defendant moves to Vacate (Cancel) the Judgment in this matter, filing a form notice, indicating that defendant is asking the court to cancel the judgment for the reason of lack of notice to defendant and defendant’s attorney, stating that defendant did not appear at the trial of the action because of a lack of notice to defendant and defendant’s attorney.

Although no legal argument is provided by the motion, CCP section 116.730 provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) A defendant who did not appear at the hearing in the small claims court may file a motion to vacate the judgment with the clerk of the small claims court. The motion shall be filed within 30 days after the clerk has mailed notice of entry of the judgment to the parties.

(b) The defendant shall appear at any hearing on the motion, or submit written justification for not appearing together with a declaration in support of the motion.

CCP section 116.740 provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) If the defendant was not properly served as required by Section 116.330 or 116.340 and did not appear at the hearing in the small claims court, the defendant may file a motion to vacate the judgment with the clerk of the small claims court. The motion shall be accompanied by a supporting declaration, and shall be filed within 180 days after the defendant discovers or should have discovered that judgment was entered against the defendant….

There is no argument here by reference to CCP sections 116.330 or 116.340 that the service of the claim itself was not properly made on defendant, as would be the subject of CCP section 116.340.

With respect to CCP section 116.330, concerning the scheduling of a hearing in a small claims case, the statute provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) When a claim is filed, the clerk shall schedule the case for hearing and shall issue an order directing the parties to appear at the time set for the hearing with witnesses and documents to prove their claim or defense.”

It appears from the file that the clerk upon the filing of the claim scheduled the case for hearing and issued the appropriate order. [See Plaintiff’s Claim and ORDER, filed 04/28/2023].

Defendant appears to argue that it had no notice of the continued trial in this matter. Defendant submits the declaration of counsel, who states that he appeared at the October 10, 2023 hearing in the lead case, and was not given notice of an OSC/Non-Jury Trial scheduled for November 28, 2023. [Vogel Decl., para. 2]. Counsel indicates that he relied on the court’s instructions on November 27, 2023 that defendant need not be present at the November 28, 2023 Case Management Conference. [Vogel Decl., para. 2]. Counsel also declares that there was a technological problem occurring at the November 28, 2023 Case Management Conference that prevented counsel from appearing telephonically, as well as a scheduling conflict with counsel’s deposition occurring that date, which prevented counsel’s physical presence. [Vogel Decl., para. 3].

This declaration does not establish a lack of notice, as this is a small claims matter, so notice was required to be given to defendant, and not to counsel, which notice was in fact mailed to defendant Greater LA Auto Center, Inc. on October 10, 2023, which notice the court expressly found was proper at the November 28, 2023 trial. The minute order of October 10, 2023 served on defendant on October 10, 2023 specifically stated, “The defendant is ordered to appear on 11/28/2023 at 8:30 a.m.”

Moreover, any purported representation to counsel in the unlimited action that defendant need not appear at the Case Management Conference in the unlimited action was not a representation that defendant need not appear for the Small Claims Trial in the small claims action.

Defendant also submits the declaration of Aramais Manukyan, who states Manukyan is “the Plaintiff in this matter.” [Manukyan Decl. line 3]. This person is clearly not the plaintiff in the small claims matter, as the plaintiff is Rodolfo Mejia. In any case, the declaration states, “I was not given notice of an Order to Show Cause/Non-Jury Trial scheduled for November 28, 2023.” [Manukyan Decl., para. 2]. The declaration also states that Manukyan relied “on my attorney’s on the court’s instructions on November 27, 2023 that Defendant need not be present at the November 28, 2023 8:30 am Case Management Conference.” [Manukyan Decl., para. 3]. There is no explanation by reference to specific facts why the witness is claiming that the entity did not receive in the mail the minute order of October 10, 2023 giving the specific notice of the trial and the express order for defendant to appear on November 28, 2023. To the extent the declaration appears to be claiming that defendant relied on counsel in the unlimited matter, this reliance was not reasonable given that defendant was not permitted to be represented by counsel in the small claims matter.

The court further notes that the minute order in the unlimited matter, Case No. 23 GDCV00917, in which Greater LA Auto Center is the plaintiff, in connection with the November 28, 2023 Case Management Conference states:

“Counsel telephonically informs the Clerk that he registered to appear remotely, but he is unable to logon. Plaintiff's counsel does not show on the registration log and does not have confirmation of registering. Counsel is advised to appear personally. The Court put the matter on second call until 10:00 A.M.

Later, there is no appearance by or for Plaintiff this date.”

[Minute Order 11/28/2023, LASC Case No. 23 GDCV00917].

Given the advice to counsel to appear personally by 10 AM that date, and counsel’s failure to mention this exchange in his current declaration, and counsel’s suggestion in his declaration that he chose not to appear personally as advised due to his deposition that day, the court finds the testimony concerning the lack of notice and the reasons for the failure to appear as ordered not credible.

Defendant has failed to make a sufficient showing of good cause for the court to vacate the small claims judgment, and the motion to vacate or cancel the judgment accordingly is denied.

RULING:

Motion to Vacate (Cancel) Judgment is DENIED.

DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE

AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances. However, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.

If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or no appearance is otherwise made, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.