Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: BC480205, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

On September 23, 2014, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff Elena Eustache and against Defendant Eugene Roy Salmonsen.

Now pending before the Court are two motions concerning the September 23, 2024 renewal of judgment: Defendant’s motion to vacate the renewal of judgment (filed on November 19, 2024), and Plaintiff’s motion to strike the assignment of judgment (filed on January 2, 2025).

Defendant’s evidentiary objections to paragraph 3 and Exhibit A of the Declaration of David Hakifar are sustained as hearsay. Defendant’s evidentiary objections to paragraphs 5, 6, 9, and 10 of the Declaration of David Hakifar are sustained as lacking foundation and personal knowledge. Defendant’s evidentiary objection to paragraph 5 of the Declaration of Elena Eustache is sustained as lacking foundation and personal knowledge.

On August 20, 2015, an Assignment of Judgment was filed. Through the assignment, Plaintiff transferred her interest in the judgment to Creditors Specialty Service Inc. Plaintiff now argues that the Assignment of Judgment was fraudulent, forged, and void ab initio.

Plaintiff declares that she “recently became aware” of the Assignment of Judgment, and she did not sign the document. (Eustache Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) She never received any payment or consideration from Creditors Specialty Service Inc. (Eustache Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff was unaware of the Assignment of Judgment until her attorney informed her of its use in Defendant’s motion to vacate the renewal. (Eustache Decl. ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff cannot claim that she only learned about the Assignment of Judgment now because of Defendant’s pending motion. On March 19, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to add judgment debtor. The order included: “It is questionable as to whether Elena Eustache even has standing to bring this motion to amend the judgment, as she assigned all her right, title and interest in the judgment to Creditors Specialty Service, Inc. See Assignment of Judgment filed on August 20, 2015.” Thus, Plaintiff has been on notice of the Assignment of Judgment since at least March 19, 2018. Her lack of action since then strongly suggests a lack of objection to the validity of the Assignment of Judgment.

Additionally, counsel for Creditors Specialty Service Inc. applied for an Order for Appearance and Examination on October 12, 2016. If Plaintiff had “been trying to collect the money owed by the judgment to [her],” as she declared in support of her September 28, 2017 motion to add judgment debtor, then she should have seen the Order for Appearance and Examination on the Court’s docket.

Although the Court sustains Defendant’s hearsay objections, the Court nevertheless acknowledges Plaintiff’s counsel’s conversation with Neil C. Evans, who represented Creditors Specialty Service Inc. when filing the Assignment. Plaintiff’s counsel declares that Attorney Evans “explicitly denied any involvement with the Notice of Association of Counsel” in this case, “stated unequivocally that the signature on the Notice of Association was not his and that he had no knowledge of the filing or any involvement in this case.” (Hakimfar Decl. ¶ 3.) Notably, Plaintiff does not provide a declaration from Attorney Evans himself.

The Assignment includes a Certificate of Acknowledgment by a notary, certifying that Plaintiff provided evidence of her identity. As Defendant notes, “there is no claim being made that the notary was also part of any nefarious scheme, and no declaration or other evidence from the notary that his notary stamp was stolen or that the notarization was otherwise invalid.” (Opposition at p. 3.) Plaintiff’s signature on the Assignment, dated April 24, 2015, is substantially similar (nearly identical) to her signature on her December 12, 2013 declaration filed on September 15, 2014 in support of the default judgment prove-up and her signature on her August 20, 2017 declaration filed on September 28, 2017 in support of her motion to add judgment debtor.

After review of the entire case file and all admissible evidence, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not shown that the Assignment was not signed by her and is fraudulent.

On September 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Application for and Renewal of Judgment as the original judgment creditor. On November 19, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to vacate renewal of judgment.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is denied as unnecessary because the orders and pleadings are already part of this case’s record.

Defendant’s evidentiary objections are overruled. Regardless, the objected-to material is irrelevant to the Court’s decision on this motion.

A judgment is enforceable until the expiration of 10 years after the date of entry. (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.020.) An application for renewal of judgment extends the period of enforceability of the judgment as renewed for a period of 10 years from the date the application is filed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 683.120, subd. (b).) After a judgment has been renewed, the next application for renewal of the judgment “may be filed . . . at any time before the expiration of the 10-year period of enforceability of the renewed judgment.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.130, subd. (a).) Only the judgment creditor may renew a judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.120, subd. (a).)

A judgment debtor may move to vacate or modify the renewal of a judgment within 60 days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.160, subd. (a).) A renewal of judgment may be vacated on any ground that would be a defense to an action on the judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.170, subd. (a).)

Defendant argues that Creditors Specialty Service Inc. is the only judgment creditor, so Plaintiff lacks standing and her Application for and Renewal of Judgment is invalid. (Motion at pp. 4-5.)

Following the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to strike the renewal, the Court concludes that only Creditors Specialty Service Inc.—the assignee and now judgment creditor—could renew the judgment. Plaintiff’s Application for and Renewal of Judgment was improper and without legal effect.

Accordingly, the motion to vacate renewal of judgment is GRANTED. The September 23, 2024 renewal is vacated.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court