Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV23066, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23066    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Ashley Kim (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on July 15, 2022 against Defendants Realtex Properties, Inc. and James Ha (jointly, “Defendants”).

Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint on September 22, 2022, alleging causes of action for (1) breach of contract and (2) unfair competition.

On December 29, 2023, the Court issued a minute order in this matter, providing, inter alia, that “[t]he Court, having taken the matter under submission on 12/28/2023 for Non-Jury Trial, now rules as follows: The Court hereby renders its Tentative Decision. It will become the Statement of Decision unless, within 10 days after announcement or service of the Tentative Decision, a party specifies those principal controverted issues as to which the party is requesting a Statement of Decision or makes proposals not included in the Tentative Decision.”

The Court’s December 29, 2023 minute order further provides, inter alia, that “[t]herefore, in its Tentative Decision, the Court decides in favor of Plaintiff and against all defendants as follows: First nine units to open escrow: 1. Listing commission $42,620. 2. Selling commission: $23,433.33 3. Transaction coordination fee: $1800 Total: $67,853.33 This sum to be paid to Plaintiff and Lifetime Realty by Realtex and James Ha. In the event a Statement of Decision is requested pursuant to CRC 3.1590(d), that Statement of Decision is to be prepared by Plaintiff.” (Emphasis omitted.)

On January 8, 2024, Defendants filed a Request for Statement of Decision.

On January 16, 2024, the Court issued a Statement of Decision. The Statement of Decision is dated January 16, 2024, and was filed on the same date.

Defendants now move to vacate the Statement of Decision dated January 16, 2024. Plaintiff opposes.[1]  A reply was filed.  The Court has considered all filings.

Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d), “[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.”

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1590, subdivision (d), “[w]ithin 10 days after announcement or service of the tentative decision, whichever is later, any party that appeared at trial may request a statement of decision to address the principal controverted issues. The principal controverted issues must be specified in the request.” As set forth above, the Court’s December 29, 2023 minute order in this case indicates, inter alia, that “[t]he Court hereby renders its Tentative Decision.” Ten days later, on January 8, 2024, Defendants filed a Request for Statement of Decision.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1590, subdivision (f), “[i]f a party requests a statement of decision under (d), the court must, within 30 days of announcement or service of the tentative decision, prepare and serve a proposed statement of decision and a proposed judgment on all parties that appeared at the trial, unless the court has ordered a party to prepare the statement. A party that has been ordered to prepare the statement must within 30 days after the announcement or service of the tentative decision, serve and submit to the court a proposed statement of decision and a proposed judgment. If the proposed statement of decision and judgment are not served and submitted within that time, any other party that appeared at the trial may within 10 days thereafter: (1) prepare, serve, and submit to the court a proposed statement of decision and judgment or (2) serve on all other parties and file a notice of motion for an order that a statement of decision be deemed waived.”

As discussed, the Court’s December 29, 2023 minute order provides, inter alia, that “[i]n the event a Statement of Decision is requested pursuant to CRC 3.1590(d), that Statement of Decision is to be prepared by Plaintiff.” (Emphasis omitted.)

Defendants’ counsel indicates that “[o]n January 12, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel a proposed Statement of Decision.” (Kim Decl., ¶ 5.) Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1590, subdivision (g), “[a]ny party may, within 15 days after the proposed statement of decision and judgment have been served, serve and file objections to the proposed statement of decision or judgment.”

The Court notes that 15 days after January 12, 2024 is January 27, 2024. As noted by Defendants, the Court’s signed Statement of Decision was issued before this date, on January 16, 2024. Defendants assert that “the Honorable Rolf Treu, by waiting only four days from the date that defendants’ counsel received via email the proposed Statement of Decision, was deprived of defendants’ input for his Statement of Decision.” (Mot. at p. 4:9-11.)

In addition, Defendants note that on January 22, 2024, Defendants filed objections to the proposed statement of decision. These objections were thus filed less than 15 days after January 12, 2024, the date “Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel a proposed Statement of Decision.” (Kim Decl., ¶ 5.)

In their opposition to the instant motion, Defendants cite to Heaps v. Heaps (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 286, 292, where the Court of Appeal found as follows:

“The judge signed the statement of decision on October 2, 2003, which was less than 10 days after September 23, when the respondents submitted a proposed statement of decision. The trial judge clearly signed the statement of decision before the time to file objections had expired. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 232(e) [‘Any party affected by the judgment may, within 10 days after service of the proposed judgment, serve and file objections thereto…[¶] The court shall, within 10 days after expiration of the time for filing objections to the proposed judgment … sign and file its judgment.’].)…

However, as this court recently noted in In re Marriage of Steiner (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 519, 524–525 [11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 671], the premature signing of a proposed statement of decision does not constitute reversible error unless actual prejudice is shown. Here, none is. The main purpose of an objection to a proposed statement of decision is not to reargue the merits, but to bring to the court’s attention inconsistencies between the court’s ruling and the document that is supposed to embody and explain that ruling. In fact, if objections do not present deficiencies to the trial court, ‘the appellate court will imply findings to support the judgment.’ (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1134 [275 Cal. Rptr. 797, 800 P.2d 1227].)

As it turned out, Mary Ann did file objections, but those objections did not identify any inconsistencies with the intended decision. Her objections were 67 pages arguing that the evidence should be reweighed in her favor. Those objections went to the underlying merits of the proposed decision, not its conformity with what the trial court had previously announced…Therefore, we conclude that the trial court’s error was harmless.” (Emphasis in original.)

Plaintiff acknowledges that here, the Court signed the statement of decision before the expiration of the time period to file an objection. (Opp’n at p. 3:15-16.) However, Plaintiff asserts that this does not result in any prejudice to Defendants. Plaintiff cites to the Court’s December 26, 2023 minute order, which provides, inter alia, that “[b]oth sides have orally stipulated to waive daily settled statement. Both sides have orally stipulated to waive an appeal.” (See December 26, 2023 minute order, p. 1.) Plaintiff argues that “[i]n light of the fact…that both parties waived appeal and stipulated not to preserve any record of testimonial evidence (no court reporter and no daily settled statements),” prejudice cannot be demonstrated.” (Opp’n at p. 2:10-13.) Plaintiff also agues that “like the Heaps case, the objections that Defendants filed in the instant case are nothing more than a 15-page long endeavor to ‘retry’ the case…” (Opp’n at p. 3:26-27, emphasis added.)

The Heaps Court found that “the premature signing of a proposed statement of decision does not constitute reversible error unless actual prejudice is shown.” (Heaps v. Heaps, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at p. 292 [emphasis in original].) Moving party, in its motion, makes no showing whatsoever of any prejudice.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to vacate the January 16, 2024 Statement of Decision is denied.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED:  March 21, 2024     

                        ________________________________

Hon. Rolf M. Treu 

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court