Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 20STCV28899, Date: 2024-09-04 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 20STCV28899    Hearing Date: September 4, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Shahrouz Jahanshahi           

RESPONDING PARTIES:    Defendants Corey Parker and Trisha Parker

(1)   Motion to Vacate Void Judgment or Order

(2)   Motion to Strike and Tax Costs

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with each motion.

MOTION TO VACATE VOID JUDGMENT OR ORDER

Plaintiff Shahrouz Jahanshahi (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order setting aside the court’s June 15, 2023 order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Corey Evan Parker (“Defendant”) and against Plaintiff on the ground that the court’s order and subsequent judgment are void under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d).

“The 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, subd. (d).) 

First, the court finds that Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant (1) committed fraud on the court by filing an ex parte application to set aside his default, or (2) committed fraud by concealing evidence from the court regarding Defendant’s failure to timely file a petition on behalf of Plaintiff, since Defendant’s declaration, filed in support of his motion for summary judgment, expressly stated that he did not timely file the petition.  (Mot., pp. 7:26-8:1, 9:1-3 [arguing that Defendant failed to state that the petition was denied due to Defendant’s missing the deadline]; Nov. 14, 2022 Parker Decl., ¶ 14 [“Unfortunately, due to a calendaring error[,] I missed the deadline to file the petition”].)

Second, the court finds that Plaintiff has not shown that the court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is void on the ground that Defendant did not notify Plaintiff of the information set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.320.  (Mot., p. 9:4-23.)

Third, the court notes that Plaintiff appears to contend that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, itself, was void.  (Mot., p. 9:24 [“Parker’s MSJ Is Void On Its Face”].)  However, section 473, subdivision (d) applies only to “void judgment[s] or order[s].”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d).)  Moreover, even if Plaintiff had shown that Defendant’s retainer agreement was invalid, Plaintiff did not present argument or authority showing that the invalidity of the parties’ retainer agreement rendered the court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment void.  (Ibid.)

Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that (1) the court’s June 15, 2023 order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant, and (2) the judgment entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on January 4, 2024, are void. 

The court therefore denies Plaintiff’s motion to vacate void judgment or order.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d).)

MOTION TO STRIKE AND TAX COSTS

Plaintiff moves the court for an order (1) striking Defendant’s memorandum of costs filed on January 24, 2024, in its entirety, and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $6,790.

First, the court finds that Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant did not timely file the memorandum of costs because (1) judgment was entered in this action on January 4, 2024, in which Defendant was awarded costs, (2) notice of entry of the judgment was served on January 4, 2024, by mail, and (3) Defendant filed and served his Memorandum of Costs on January 24, 2024, consisting of 15 days after service of the cost memorandum plus 5 calendar days for service by mail.  (Jan. 4, 2024 Judgment, p. 2:5-9; Jan. 4, 2024 Notice of Entry of Judgment, pp. 1, 2 [Certificate of Mailing]; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1700, subd. (a)(1); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013, subd. (a).)

Second, the court finds that Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant is not entitled to costs.  While Plaintiff contends that Defendant is not permitted to recover costs pursuant to Civil Code section 1717 (which provides for the recovery of attorney’s fees and costs in an action on a contract), Plaintiff did not show that Defendant is not entitled to costs as the prevailing party in this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1032.  Moreover, the court finds that Defendant is entitled to costs as the prevailing party.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subds. (a)(4), (b) [“Except as otherwise provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding”]; Jan. 4, 2024 Judgment.)

            Third, the court notes that Plaintiff has not challenged specific requests for costs.  (Mot., p. 4:10-14 [challenging the memorandum of costs in its entirety].)  “A ‘verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of the propriety’ of the items listed on it, and the burden is on the party challenging these costs to demonstrate that they were not reasonable or necessary.”  (Adams v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1486.)  Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden (1) to challenge specific costs requested in Defendant’s verified cost memorandum, and (2) to demonstrate that they were not reasonable or necessary.  (Ibid.)  Moreover, even if Plaintiff had met this burden, the court finds that Defendant has supported his request for costs in opposition.  (MC-010, ¶¶ 1-2, 4, 11; Lupton Decl., ¶¶ 3-6; Lupton Decl., Ex. 1 [e-filing fees in the amount of $4,166.50], Ex. 2 [$150 in jury fees], Ex. 3 [$4,733.75 in deposition costs], Ex. 11 [$5,105.18 in court reporter’s fees].)

            The court therefore denies Plaintiff’s motion to strike and tax costs.   

            The court also denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

ORDER

            The court denies plaintiff Shahrouz Jahanshahi’s motion to vacate void judgment or order.

            The court denies plaintiff Shahrouz Jahanshahi’s motion strike and tax costs.

            The court orders defendants Corey Parker and Trisha Parker to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  September 4, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court