Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21CHCV00189, Date: 2022-12-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00189    Hearing Date: December 28, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 12-28-22 (a/f 3-1-23 via 11-1-22 ex parte order)

Case: 21CHCV00189

VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor, Duda Adams

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendant/Judgment Debtor, GG&C 1, LLC, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Vacate Default Judgment

BACKGROUND

On March 10, 2021, Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Duda Adams filed a complaint for forcible detainer, wrongful eviction, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. On August 16, 2021, Adams filed a verified first amended complaint for forcible detainer, wrongful eviction, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, restitution, conversion, loss of prospective economic advantage, quiet, declaratory relief, constructive trust, and adverse possession. Adams filed a notice of lis pendens on August 16, 2021 as well.

On March 15, 2022, the court entered a default judgment in favor of Adams for $1,830,723. The court also entered judgment “Quieting Title in the property located at 18834 Devonshire St., Northridge…in Plaintiff’s name...”

RULING: Granted, as to the Quiet Title Portion of the Default Judgment.

Evidentiary Objections: Overruled.

Defendant/Judgment Debtor, GG&C 1, LLC, and David Adams moves to vacate the March 15, 2022 default judgment, thereby quashing any writ of execution and execution of the deed. The motion comes on two grounds: the default judgment quieting title was granted without the required oral evidentiary hearing, or alternatively, the judgment itself was the result of extrinsic fraud or mistake.

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Duda Adams challenges the motion as untimely and lacking a basis of relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor otherwise concedes to the requirement for an evidentiary hearing on the quiet title portion of the judgment, and otherwise denies any extrinsic fraud.

Given the parties concession on the quiet title cause of action, the court vacates the default judgment as to the quiet title portion of the judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473, subd. (d), 764.010; Yeung v. Soos (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 576, 581.) The court therefore vacates the October 26 order appointing the elisor/designation of the court clerk to execute the grant deed.

It’s not clear from the motion whether Defendant/Judgment Debtor otherwise challenges the remaining portion of the default judgment for $1,830,723. The motion only offers a generalized argument regarding the circumstances of the default and judgment, without any requested relief beyond vacating the judgment in regards to the quiet title action. The court therefore declines to address or make any arguments regarding the monetary judgment.

The motion is therefore granted as to the quiet title judgment only. The court additionally vacates the October 26 order appointing the elisor/designation of the court clerk to execute the grant deed. Defendant/Judgment Debtor is ordered to answer the quiet title claims in the operative complaint within 10 days of this order. If Defendant/Judgment Debtor fails to answer, the court will set a prove-up hearing for the quiet title claim. If Defendant/Judgment Debtor timely answers, the court will deem the case at issue, and set a trial date regarding the quiet title portion of the action only.

Defendant/Judgment Debtor to provide notice of the order.