Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: BC683006, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC683006    Hearing Date: August 9, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant and Cross-Complainant R.R. Crane Investment Corporation, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:        Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Brian W. Crane

Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment

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

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 

The court overrules Brian W. Crane’s July 15, 2022 evidentiary objections.

DISCUSSION

Defendant and Cross-Complainant R.R. Crane Investment Corporation (“RRCIC”) moves the court for an order (1) setting aside its June 7, 2022 judgment in favor of Brian Crane (“Crane”) and against RRCIC following the court’s order granting Crane’s motion for summary judgment against RRCIC’s First Amended Cross-Complaint and (2) entering a new order denying Crane’s motion for summary judgment.  RRCIC moves for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 663 on the ground that the court’s order granting Crane’s motion for summary judgment was supported by an incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision and was not consistent with or supported by the facts.

A motion to set aside and vacate a judgment and enter a different judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 663 “is a remedy to be used when a trial court draws incorrect conclusions of law or renders an erroneous judgment on the basis of uncontroverted evidence.” (Simac Design, Inc. v. Alciati (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 146, 153.)  Section 663 provides that a judgment may be vacated on the ground of an “[i]ncorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or not supported by the facts . . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 663; see Glen Hill Farm, LLC v. California Horse Racing Board (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1302 [noting that the court cannot “in any way change any finding of fact”].)

The court denies RRCIC’s motion to set aside and vacate judgment because RRCIC has not met its burden to establish that the court’s judgment was rendered on an incorrect or erroneous legal basis, not consistent with or not supported by the facts.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 663, subd. (1).)

First, the court finds that RRCIC failed to meet its burden of establishing an incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the court’s order granting Crane’s motion for summary judgment that is not consistent with or not supported by the facts on the ground that there were triable issues of fact that required denying Crane’s motion.  The evidence supported a finding that (1) the statute of limitations began to accrue when Crane disputed the loan on February 14, 2008, and (2) any evidence demonstrating that Crane later acknowledged the loan occurred following the expiration of the statute of limitations for each of RRCIC’s causes of action and therefore could not revive RRCIC’s barred claims. 

Second, the court notes that RRCIC failed to raise the issue of offset in (1) its operative First Amended Cross-Complaint, (2) its Answer to Crane’s Complaint, and (3) its opposition to Crane’s motion for summary judgment.  Because offset is an affirmative defense, RRCIC was required to plead this defense in its Answer.  (Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189, 198 [“the defendant may only assert the setoff defensively”].)  RRCIC failed to plead this theory in its Answer and therefore is deemed to have waived it.  (Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758, 813.)  The court notes that RRCIC contends that this defense may be pleaded in a cross-complaint.  Even if the court were to accepted this contention, a review of RRCIC’s pleadings reveals that RRCIC failed to plead or request offset in its First Amended Cross-Complaint.

Third, even assuming that the issue of offset were not waived, the court finds that Code of Civil Procedure section 431.70 is inapplicable to the circumstances presented here.  Under section 431.70, “[w]here cross-demands for money have existed between persons at any point in time when neither demand was barred by the statute of limitations, and an action is thereafter commenced by one such person, the other person may assert in the answer the defense of payment in that the two demands are compensated so far as they equal each other, notwithstanding that an independent action asserting the person’s claim would at the time of filing the answer be barred by the statute of limitations.” 

Crane filed his Complaint against RRCIC on November 13, 2017, asserting one cause of action for involuntary dissolution.  (Compl., ¶¶ 12-15.)  Crane’s prayer for relief requested (1) a decree that RRCIC be wound up and dissolved; (2) ancillary orders and decrees necessary to effectuate RRCIC’s winding up and dissolution; and (3) additional and further relief as the court deems proper.  (Compl., Prayer, ¶¶ 1-3.)  Crane’s Complaint did not contain a demand for money.  The court therefore finds that section 431.70 is inapplicable because no “cross-demands for money [] existed between” Crane and RRCIC.

For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that RRCIC has failed to meet its burden of establishing that, in granting Crane’s motion for summary judgment and subsequently entering judgment in favor of Crane and against RRCIC on June 7, 2022, the court drew “incorrect conclusions of law or render[ed] an erroneous judgment on the basis of uncontroverted evidence.”  (Simac Design, Inc., supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at p. 153.)

ORDER

The court denies R.R. Crane Investment Corporation, Inc.’s Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment on its Cross-Complaint.

The court orders plaintiff and cross-defendant Brian W. Crane to give notice of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  August 9, 2022

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court