Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 20STCV47187, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47187    Hearing Date: August 18, 2022    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background 

On December 9, 2020, Plaintiff David Mazor (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Defendants William Leys (“Leys”) and Jose Ortiz (“Ortiz”) (jointly, “Defendants”) for stalking.  

On January 28, 2021, default was entered against Ortiz. On April 6, 2021, default was entered against Leys. On June 30, 2021, the Court issued an order denying Leys’ motion to set aside default. On August 24, 2021, Judgment was entered in this matter against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $1,000,855.00, plus post-judgment interest. The August 24, 2021 Judgment also includes specified injunctive orders.  

Leys, in pro per, now moves the Court to “declare the Plaintiff’s Judgment void under CCP 473(d) for fraud committed upon the Court by the Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorneys, failure to serve defendant William Leys and to vacate the Judgment and dismiss all defendants from the case with prejudice.”[1] Plaintiff opposes. 

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests that the Court to take judicial notice of various court documents. The unopposed request is granted.  

Discussion

Leys argues that the Judgment in this case should be declared void under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d) because Plaintiff purportedly committed fraud upon the Court. Specifically, Leys contends that the “Declaration of David Mazor In Support of Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order To Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction” and the “Supplemental Declaration of David Mazor In Support of Order To Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction” contain false statements.

However, Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (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.”

Leys does not argue that there are any clerical mistakes in the Judgment nor does he present evidence that the judgment in this case is void. Accordingly, the Court does not find that Leys has established grounds for relief under Section 473(d).

            Plaintiff also indicates that the subject declarations referenced above did not serve as the basis for the Court’s entry of default Judgment against Leys. Leys does not respond to this point. Moreover, Plaintiff notes that even if the Leys’ allegations concerning the declarations were true, which Plaintiff denies, “[i]t is settled in this state that a judgment will not be set aside because it is based upon perjured testimony or because material evidence is concealed or suppressed, that such fraud both as to the court and the party against whom judgment is rendered is not fraud extrinsic to the record for which relief may be had. The rule is the same whether the judgment sought to be set aside is a default judgment or rendered after answer and contested trial.” (Heathman v. Vant (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 639, 648–649 [internal citations omitted].) As Plaintiff notes, this point was discussed in the Court’s May 16, 2022 Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order/OSC Re Contempt against Leys.

            Lastly, Plaintiff asserts in the opposition that Leys’ filing of the instant motion is sanctionable. However, Plaintiff does not indicate that he seeks sanctions in any particular amount against Leys. The Court notes that “[a] request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Leys’ motion is denied.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED:  August 18, 2022                             ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court