Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2020-01171606, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff, National Funding, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order vacating the default judgment entered against Defendant Paul Vail on August 13, 2021, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d) on the ground that the default judgment is void.

Plaintiff contends that on August 13, 2021, it filed its default judgment application against Defendant Paul Vail (“Defendant”), and that a default judgment was entered that same day, but that on March 17, 2021, prior to the application, the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division, in Case No. 20-22320-PDR, as part of Advance Case Parts, Inc.’s Subchapter V Plan for Reorganization, ordered all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant relating to the loan agreement and guaranty that are the subject of the instant action to be released, such that at the time Plaintiff filed its default judgment application, this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Defendant. Plaintiff now requests that the Court find the default judgment void and vacate such judgment to correct Plaintiff’s error in filing the default judgment application pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d).

No opposition has been filed.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d) provides, “[t]he court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d).)  A motion under this section may be made at any time. (Schwab v. Southern California Gas Co. (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1320.) A judgment is void if the court rendering it lacked subject matter jurisdiction or jurisdiction over the parties. (In re A.R. (2012) 203 Cal. App. 4th 1160, 1170.) “ ‘The principle of “subject matter jurisdiction” relates to the inherent authority of the court involved to deal with the case or matter before it.’ [Citation] Thus, in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction, a trial court has no power ‘to hear or determine [the] case.’ [Citation.]” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 196.)

Plaintiff submits that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Defendant at the time it filed its default application against Defendant as a result of Advance Case Parts, Inc.’s Subchapter V Plan for Reorganization filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of Florida which ordered all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant relating to the loan agreement and guaranty that are the subject of the instant action to be released. (Declaration of James E. Hawley, ¶¶ 2-3; Ex. A.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion and vacates the default judgment entered on August 13, 2021, as void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiff to give notice.