Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case 22STCP03084 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCP03084, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP03084 Hearing Date: December 15, 2022 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: December 15, 2022 Judgment Entered: August 17, 2022

CASE: Regis Capital Group v. Innovative Business Management & Development, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.: 22STCP03084

MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Vann Heflin Holdings, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 12/12/22

CASE HISTORY:

· 08/17/22: Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment filed.

· 08/17/22: Judgment entered.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This case involves a petition for entry of judgment on a sister-state judgment. The County Court of Harris County, Texas entered judgment for Plaintiff on December 12, 2019. Judgment was entered against all defendants in this Court on August 17, 2022.

Defendant Vann Heflin Holdings, Inc. moves to set aside the judgment as void.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Vann Heflin Holdings, Inc.’s Motion to Set Aside is DENIED without prejudice.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant Vann Heflin Holdings, Inc. moves to set aside the judgment as void.

Missing Proof of Service

Defendant has not included a proof of service with this motion establishing that notice was properly given under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). As Plaintiff has not responded to this motion, Defendant has not established that Plaintiff was given adequate notice of this motion. Ordinarily, the Court would exercise its discretion to either continue this matter for proper service, or condition its ruling on the filing of a proof of service demonstrating proper notice. However, as there are several other serious defects with this motion, as detailed below, the Court declines to do so.

Unrepresented Corporate Entity

Defendant is an incorporated entity which filed this motion without the representation of counsel. California precedent is extremely clear that a corporate entity cannot represent itself without counsel. (See, e.g., Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 729.) In the Court’s November 14, 2022 order on the Case Management Conference in this matter, the Court advised Defendant that a corporation must be represented by counsel. To date, no substitution of attorney has been filed with the Court. Ordinarily, in the interest of permitting the resolution of the issues before the Court on their merits, the Court would order a continuance to permit Defendant to secure legal representation. However, as there are also serious issues with service, as addressed above, and with the merits of the motion, below, the Court does not think a continuance is appropriate in this instance.

Analysis of Merits

Although the Court would not ordinarily address the merits of a motion that is procedurally defective in the manner described above, here, the Court will do so to facilitate full remediation of the defects in this motion.

Defendant moves to set aside the judgment entered on August 17, 2022, improperly described as a default judgment, on the basis that it is void. Defendant does not cite any specific statute under which the motion is brought. However, the Court construes this motion as a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d), which states:

The 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.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d).) Defendant’s factual basis for the motion is unclear from the papers, but it appears to the Court that Defendant argues that there was never a debt owed by Defendant to the Plaintiff. Without additional context, the Court is unable to determine how this contention is in any way relevant to the judgment. Further, Defendant offers no evidence beyond a conclusory statement in a “declaration” from Vann Heflin Holdings, Inc., a corporate entity that cannot give a verified declaration, that the Plaintiff “frauded the courts.” This is not remotely sufficient to establish that the August 17, 2022 entry of judgment following a sister-state judgment was void and should be set aside.

For this reason alone, the Court would be empowered to deny the motion in its entirety. However, as the motion is riven with curable procedural defects, and the insufficiency of the motion on its merits is due to its lack of detail, the Court will exercise its discretion to deny this motion without prejudice. Defendant is admonished, however, that Defendant must be represented by counsel to seek relief from this Court. Further, any future motion to set aside the judgment must give proper notice and set forth the statutory basis for the relief sought. Failure to comply with the Court’s orders in this respect will result in the denial with prejudice of any future motion to set aside.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Defendant Vann Heflin Holdings, Inc.’s Motion to Set Aside is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2022 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.