Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 23STCP01194, Date: 2023-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP01194    Hearing Date: August 23, 2023    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   August 23, 2023                                             

CASE NAME:           Hallock Design Hospitality, LLC v. Sheila Vance

CASE NO.:                23STCP01194

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT BASED ON SISTER STATE JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Sheila Vance

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Hallock Design Hospitality, LLC

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motion to Vacate Judgment is DENIED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On October 1, 2018, Hallock Design Hospitality, LLC (“HDH”) filed a First Amended Complaint in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida in Case No. 2018-000477-CA-01, captioned Hallock Design Hospitality, LLC v. Sam Vaziri Vance et al. (the "Florida Action"). The Florida Action alleged breach of contract against Sam Vaziri Vance, Inc. dba Sama Eyewear ("SVVI") and civil theft and fraud against SVVl's principal, Sheila Vance ("Vance").

On December 6, 2018, Sheila filed an Answer to the First Amended Complaint, asserting the affirmative defense that the Florida court "lacks personal jurisdiction over her, as she is not a Florida resident and took no actions on [sic.] her individual capacity in Florida.” Nevertheless, the Florida Court entered a final Judgment on July 20, 2022, and made the following findings:

“As for the Court's personal jurisdiction, [HDH] established at trial that Mrs. Vance committed a tortious act within Florida by initiating the AMEX chargeback disputes which ultimately resulted in the funds in question being wrongfully withdrawn from HDH’s account in Miami. As per John Hall Elec. Contracting, Inc. v. Allstate Const., Inc., 917 So. 2d 310, 311-12 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) and En vases Venezolanos, S.A. v. Coloazo, 559 So. 2d 651, 652-53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), ... , this is sufficient to establish the commission of a tortious act within Florida since the funds at issue were wrongfully withdrawn from a Florida bank account. Thus, the Court possess personal jurisdiction over Mrs. Vance, irrespective of her physical presence (or lack thereof) within the state, pursuant to Florida Statutes §48.193(2) (committing a tortious act within Florida). See also, Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So. 2d 1252, 1260 (Fla. 2002); State, Office of Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs v. Wyndham International, Inc. 869 So. 2d 592, 595-96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (physical presence within Florida unnecessary for personal jurisdictional purposes; electronic communications into the state, from which the cause of action arises, sufficient to bestow jurisdiction).”

The Florida Court then entered a final judgment against Vance for civil theft in the sum of $227,538.96 and fraud in the amount of $20,879.88, for a total judgment of $248,418.84. It also entered an order granting HDH’s attorneys fees and costs against Vance in the sum of $232,230. The total amount remaining unpaid on the Florida Judgment against Vance is $480,648.94.

On August 18, 2022, Vance appealed the Florida Judgment. However, she did not file an opening brief and thus abandoned her appeal. On February 28, 2023, the appeal was dismissed.

On April 12, 2023, HDH filed an application for entry of judgment on sister-state judgment in the amount of $486,708.05, the amount remaining unpaid on the sister-state judgment plus the filing fee for the application and $15,624.11 in interest.

On April 17, 2023, the Clerk entered the judgment in favor of HDH in the full amount requested. 

On June 2, 2023, Vance filed the instant motion to vacate the April 17, 2023 judgment.

On August 10, 2023, HDH filed an opposition, a request for judicial notice, a notice of lodging, and the Declaration of Kevin Dicker in support of the opposition. No reply brief was filed.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The Court grants Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice as to Exhibits 1-11, pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(a) and (d).

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 1710.40 provides, in pertinent part: 

“(a) A judgment entered pursuant to this chapter may be vacated on any ground which would be a defense to an action in this state on the sister state judgment, including the ground that the amount of interest accrued on the sister state judgment and included in the judgment entered pursuant to this chapter is incorrect. 

(b) Not later than 30 days after service of notice of entry of judgment pursuant to¿Section 1710.30, proof of which has been made in the manner provided by Article 5 (commencing with¿Section 417.10) of Chapter 4 of Title 5 of Part 2, the judgment debtor, on written notice to the judgment creditor, may make a motion to vacate the judgment under this section.”

“The statute does not identify the available defenses, but the Law Revision’s comment to section 1710.40 states that ‘[c]ommon defenses to enforcement of a sister state judgment include the following: the judgment is not final and unconditional . . .; the judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud; the judgment was rendered in excess of jurisdiction; the judgment is not enforceable in the state of rendition; the plaintiff is guilty of misconduct; the judgment has already been paid; [and] suit on the judgment is barred by the statute of limitations in the state where enforcement is sought.’”  (Blizzard Energy, Inc. v. Schaefers (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 295, 298 (Blizzard Energy).) 

California’s Sister State Money Judgments Act is “part of a procedural enactment that implements the Full Faith and Credit Clause [citations], which is an ‘exacting’ constitutional mandate [citation].”  (Casey v. Hill (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 937, 962 (Casey).)  “[U]pon a claim that a foreign judgment is not entitled to full faith and credit, the permissible scope of inquiry is limited to a determination of whether the court of forum had fundamental jurisdiction in the case.  Accordingly, a judgment entered by one state must be recognized by another state if the state of rendition had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter and all interested parties were given reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard.”  (World Wide Imports, Inc. v. Bartel (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1010 (World Wide Imports).)  “As long as the sister state court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, a sister state judgment is entitled to full faith and credit ‘even as to matters of law or fact erroneously decided.’”  (Bank of America v. Jennett (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 104, 118 (Bank of America).) 

 “[While] it is established that a court in one State, when asked to give effect to the judgment of a court in another State, may constitutionally inquire into the foreign court’s jurisdiction to render that judgment, the modern decisions of [the Supreme] Court have carefully delineated the permissible scope of such an inquiry.  From these decisions there emerges the general rule that a judgment is entitled to full faith and credit—even as to questions of jurisdiction—when the second court’s inquiry discloses that those questions have been fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in the court which rendered the original judgment.”  (Bank of America, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 113, quotation marks omitted.) 

“A California court, in ruling on a motion to vacate entry of a sister state judgment, may not retry the case.”  (Blizzard, supra, 44 Cal.App.5th at p. 298.)  “The party moving to vacate entry of judgment has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to relief.”  (Casey, supra, 79 Cal.App.5th at p. 961.) 

ANALYSIS:

Here, Plaintiff’s proof of service of the notice of entry of judgment, dated April 17, 2023, is unsigned and therefore improper. Thus, Vance’s motion to vacate is timely.

On the merits, Vance contends that the sister state judgment should be vacated because the Florida Court did not have jurisdiction over her in the Florida Action. Vance states that Wade Hallock, the principal of HDH, admitted at trial that Vance was and is a resident of California and did not travel to Florida in connection with the events that led to this lawsuit. (Michel Decl., Ex. C.) Vance also states that there was no evidence shown at trial demonstrating she had “continuous” and “substantial” activity in Florida, or “substantial and not isolated activities in Florida.” Further, Vance states that there was no evidence that she had any contacts in Florida that were related or unrelated to the litigation. Vance contends that her liability derives from disputing charges to American Express on behalf of SVVI, for which she is a principal. Vance admits disputing the charges to American Express; and states that American Express reviewed evidence presented by HDH and made the decision that the reversal of charges was appropriate. (Michel Decl., Ex. C.)

Despite these arguments, the Court finds that Vance does not meet its burden to show Florida lacked jurisdiction. Vance already litigated this issue in the Florida Action. [RJN, Ex. 4, pp. 18-19]. There, the Florida Court found that it possessed personal jurisdiction over Vance, irrespective of her lack of physical presence within the state, because she committed a tortious act within Florida by initiating the AMEX chargeback disputes which ultimately resulted in the funds in question being wrongfully withdrawn from HDH' s account in Miami. (Ibid.) Florida’s long-arm statute provides that any person, whether or not a citizen of the state, submits herself to jurisdiction of the courts of the state by committing a tortious act within the state. (Florida Statutes (2001) §48.193(i)(b).) Therefore, Florida’s Court properly determined that it had jurisdiction over Vance. Vance’s moving papers do not show that the Florida Court reached an improper conclusion. Accordingly, her motion is denied.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

Motion to Vacate Judgment is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             August 23, 2023                                  ___________________________________

                                                                                    Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court