Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 20STCV35881, Date: 2025-03-11 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: 20STCV35881    Hearing Date: March 11, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Mary Jane Pardo      

RESPONDING PARTIES:    Defendants Jason Eugene Burt and Coast 2 Coast Funding Group, Inc.

(1)   Motion to Strike Notice of Intent to Move for New Trial

MOVING PARTIES:              Defendants Jason Eugene Burt and Coast 2 Coast 2 Coast Funding Group, Inc.                

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Mary Jane Pardo

(2)   Motion for New Trial

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with the motion to strike notice of intent to move for new trial. 

The court considered the moving and opposition papers filed in connection with the motion for new trial.  No reply papers were filed.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The court grants defendants Jason Eugene Burt and Coast 2 Coast Funding Group, Inc.’s request for judicial notice, filed on February 24, 2025, in support of their opposition to the motion to strike notice of intent to move for new trial.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

The court grants plaintiff Mary Jane Pardo’s request for judicial notice, filed on March 4, 2025, in support of her reply to the motion to strike notice of intent to move for new trial.  (Evid. Code ,§ 452, subd. (d).) 

The court grants defendants Jason Eugene Burt and Coast 2 Coast Funding Group, Inc.’s request for judicial notice, filed on February 3, 2025, in support of their motion for new trial.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

The court grants plaintiff Mary Jane Pardo’s request for judicial notice, filed on February 13, 2025, in support of her opposition to the motion for new trial.  (Evid. Code ,§ 452, subd. (d).) 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Mary Jane Pardo (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on September 18, 2020 against, inter alia, defendants Jason Eugene Burt (“Burt”) and Coast 2 Coast Funding Group, Inc.  (collectively, “Defendants”).  

On December 16, 2024, the court issued its tentative decision on trial, finding (1) in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants on the first cause of action, and (2) in favor of Plaintiff and against defendant Burt on the eighth cause of action.  (Dec. 16, 2024 Tentative Dec. on Trial, pp. 21:27-22:5, 22:11-14.)  The parties did not file objections to the court’s December 16, 2024 Tentative Decision on Trial, and the court thereafter issued its Statement of Decision and entered judgment on January 9, 2025.

Now pending before the court are the following two motions: (1) Defendants’ motion for new trial, filed on February 3, 2025 (following Defendants’ filing of their Notice of Intent to File Motion for New Trial on January 24, 2025), and (2) Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ notice of intent to move for new trial, filed on February 13, 2025.  Because Plaintiff moves to strike Defendants’ notice of intent to move for new trial, the court exercises its discretion to first consider Plaintiff’s motion before addressing Defendants’ motion for new trial.

MOTION TO STRIKE NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

Plaintiff moves the court for an order striking Defendants’ Notice of Intent to Move for New Trial on the ground that it was not timely served on Plaintiff. 

“The party intending to move for a new trial shall file with the clerk and serve upon each adverse party a notice of their intention to move for a new trial, designating the grounds upon which the motion will be made and whether the same will be made upon affidavits or the minutes of the court, or both, either:  [¶]  (1) After the decision is rendered and before the entry of judgment.  [¶]  (2) Within 15 days of the date of serving notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the court pursuant to Section 664.5 . . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 659, subd. (a).)  “To be service ‘pursuant to Section 664.5’ [citations] the notice of entry of judgment mailed by the clerk must ‘affirmatively state’ it is given ‘ “upon order by the court” or “under section 664.5”’” [citation].”  (Palmer v. GTE California, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1265, 1277 [internal citations omitted].)

On January 9, 2025, the court issued a minute order (1) stating that it had signed and filed the statement of decision and judgment in this action, and (2) directing the clerk to serve copies of the court’s minute order, Statement of Decision, and judgment on all parties in this action.  (Jan. 9, 2025 Minute Order, p. 1.)  The clerk mailed copies of the court’s January 9, 2025 minute order to counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants on January 9, 2025.  (Jan. 9, 2025 Cert. of Mailing, p. 1.)  The clerk also mailed, on January 9, 2025, the Notice of Entry of Judgment and Dismissal, which stated that judgment was entered on January 9, 2025.  (Jan. 9, 2025 Notice of Entry of Judgment, pp. 1 [notice], 2 [certificate of mailing].)  Defendants filed their Notice of Intention to File Motion for New Trial on January 24, 2025, and served a copy thereof on counsel for Plaintiff on January 27, 2025.[1]  (Serova Decl., ¶ 3.)

First, the court finds that the Notice of Entry of Judgment served on January 9, 2025 does not itself constitute notice of entry of judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 because the notice does not “‘affirmatively state’ it [was] given ‘ “upon order by the court” or “under section 664.5” ’” [citation].”  (Palmer, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 1277.)

The court recognizes, as noted by Plaintiff, that the form used by the clerk includes a reference to section 664.5 in the bottom righthand corner.  (Jan. 9, 2025 Notice of Entry of Judgment, p. 1.)  However, that reference does not include a statement that the notice was being mailed pursuant to section 664.5 and therefore did not begin the 15-day period by which Defendants were required to file and serve their notice of intent to move for new trial.  (Simgel Co., Inc. v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 305, 314-315 [noting that the form served by the clerk was “a Los Angeles Superior Court multi-purpose form used for notice of entry of judgment or dismissal or other order[,]” which included the reference to section 664.5 but finding that, “because the notice does not affirmatively state it was given ‘upon order by the court,’ or ‘under section 664.5,’” the court could not assume the court ordered the clerk to serve notice].)  The court “cannot guess whether the reference to section 664.5 on the form is meant to imply the court ordered the clerk to serve notice of entry of judgment” and therefore is insufficient, alone, to show that the clerk served notice of entry of judgment on the parties pursuant to section 664.5.  (Id. at p. 315.)

Second, the court finds that service of the court’s January 9, 2025 minute order constituted notice of entry of judgment pursuant to section 664.5.

As set forth above, the court’s January 9, 2025 minute order stated that the court “signed and entered the judgment in this action[,]” and “direct[ed] the clerk to serve copies of this minute order, the court’s Statement of Decision, and the judgment on all parties in this action.”  (Jan. 9, 2025 Minute Order, p. 1.)  The court therefore finds that (1) the court ordered the clerk to give the parties notice of the entry of judgment in this action, which is affirmatively stated on the court’s January 9, 2025 minute order, such that (2) the clerk’s January 9, 2025 service of the January 9, 2025 minute order—which states that judgment had been entered and therefore gave the parties notice of that judgment—constituted notice of entry of judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5.  (Jan. 9, 2025 Minute Order, p. 1 [directing clerk to serve copies of judgment on all parties in this action]; Jan. 9, 2025 Cert. of Mailing of Minute Order (Statement of Decision); Palmer, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 1277 [no particular form of notice is required, and “[t]he written notice of entry of judgment . . . need not, for the purposes of these sections, be a separate document entitled ‘notice of entry of judgment’”].)

Thus, the court finds that Defendants had 15 days from January 9, 2025 to file and serve their notice of intention to move for new trial.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 659, subds. (a)(2), (b), 1013, subd. (a) [extension for service by mail does not apply to the time for filing a notice of intention to move for new trial].)  Defendants’ service on Plaintiff[2] of their “Notice of Intention to File Motion for New Trial” on January 27, 2025, i.e., 18 days after January 9, 2025, was therefore untimely.  (Ibid; Serova Decl., ¶ 3 and Ex. B, p. 1 [email dated January 27, 2025 stating “Please find enclosed the service copy of the Notice of Intention to Move for New Trial”].)

Because the court finds that Defendants’ service of the Notice of Intention to Move for New Trial was not timely served on Plaintiff, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion to strike.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b) [court has discretion to strike any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state].)

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

Defendants move the court for an order setting aside the judgment entered in this action on January 9, 2025 and granting a new trial on all of the issues on the grounds that (1) the award of damages was excessive, (2) the evidence was insufficient to justify the decision and ultimate judgment, and (3) the decision and judgment were contrary to law.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 657, subds. (5) [allowing for new trial on ground of excessive damages], (6) [allowing for new trial on ground of insufficiency of evidence], (7) [allowing for new trial on ground of error in law].)

First, the court denies Defendants’ motion because the court has determined, for the reasons set forth above, that Defendants did not timely serve Plaintiff with their Notice of Intention to File Motion for New Trial and therefore has ordered it stricken.  (Reyes v. Kruger (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 58, 73 [“‘the trial court loses jurisdiction to hear a new trial motion if no notice of intent is filed within 15 days of the mailing or service of notice of entry of judgment, or within 180 days of the entry of the judgment’”].)

Second, even if the court had concluded that Defendants timely filed and served their notice of intention to move for new trial, the court finds, upon consideration of the arguments presented by the parties, that (1) it did not award Plaintiff excessive damages (i) by awarding damages in connection with the Ladera Lending loan and Point Digital Finance loan, or (ii) by awarding prejudgment interest on the Point Digital Finance loan, (2) it did not make an error in law by awarding prejudgment interest on the Point Digital Finance loan, and (3) there was sufficient evidence to find Burt liable for the damages suffered by Plaintiff in connection with the Point loan.[3]  (Code Civ. Proc., § 657, subds. (5), (6), (7).)

ORDER

            The court grants plaintiff Mary Jane Pardo’s motion to strike intent to move for new trial.

            The court orders that the “Notice of Intent to File Motion for New Trial,” filed by defendants Jason Eugene Burt and Coast 2 Coast Funding Group, Inc. on January 24, 2025, is stricken.

            The court denies defendants Jason Eugene Burt and Coast 2 Coast Funding Group, Inc.’s motion for new trial.

            The court orders plaintiff Mary Jane Pardo to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 11, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court