If you obtained a judgment against your former client for over $7.7 million, and had the court of appeal knock it down to around $1.7 million, and the trial court entered judgment in that reduced amount 14 months after the date of the original judgment, you would want interest to run on the judgment — even from the reduced amount — from the date of the original judgment, right? Of course you would. After all, 14 months of interest at a simple 10% on the $1.7 million amount is nearly $200,000. That’s not pocket change. (Well, not for me, anyway.) But in Chodos v. Borman, case no. B260326 (2d Dist. August 18, 2015),…
-
-
Judgment assignees better be careful
Last month’s decision in Cal-Western Business Services, Inc. v. Corning Capital Group, case no. B241714 (2d Dist., November 6, 2013) makes for some interesting reading and a cautionary tale for those who purchase assignments of judgments. Corning Capital found itself on the losing end of a money judgment. The original judgment creditor assigned the judgment to Pacific West One Corp., who then assigned it to the unfortunate Cal-Western. Why unfortunate? Because Pacific West One’s corporate status was suspended at the time it gave the assignment and was never revived, and the trial court held that as a result, Cal-Western lacked capacity to enforce the judgment against Corning Capital. The Court…
-
What does “abuse of discretion” mean in your case?
Sometimes, it seems that defining an “abuse of discretion” is like nailing jello to the wall (maybe worse, since the latter is difficult, but not impossible). There are many nuances to the standard, which can depend on the statute being applied, the basis for the abuse of discretion, and the particular procedural posture of the case. The last of these variables is what helps the appellant overcome this highly deferential standard of review and have the default judgment against it lifted in Fasuyi v. Permatetex, Inc. case no. A117760 (1st Dist. Oct. 15, 2008). Permatex made a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 to vacate the default judgment against…
-
Is Summary Judgment Unconstitutional?
That’s surely a heretical thought to many. And not one that would have popped into my head had reader Joe Norman not commented on my post regarding new trial motions following summary judgment by sending a link to an article by University of Cincinnati College of Law professor Suja Thomas entitled “Why Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional.” Before you laugh off that idea, you ought to read the abstract at that link. An excerpt: While other scholars question the use of summary judgment in certain types of cases (for example, civil rights cases), all scholars and judges assume away a critical question: whether summary judgment is constitutional. The conventional wisdom is…
-
Be Careful with those Plea Agreements
Be very, very careful with the language of your plea agreement. After all, it’s a contract, and deserves the same careful consideration before entering into it. You might live to regret it, even if it takes 20 years for it to catch up with you, as happened to the defendant in People v. Paredes, case no. D050150 (4th Dist. Feb. 26, 2008). Paredes, a legally resident alien, pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter in 1987 in part because the prosecutor agreed to a “JRAD” — a judicial recommendation against deportation — that, under 1987 federal law, precluded the government from removing him from the country on the basis of the conviction.…
-
O.J.’s Jurisdictional Challenge Goes Nowhere
Does a court need to have personal jurisdiction over a judgment debtor at the time it renews a judgment in order for that renewal to be valid? In Goldman v. Simpson, case no. B200082 (2d Dist. Feb. 20, 2008), O.J. Simpson moved to vacate the renewal of the judgment against him on the ground it was void for lack of personal jurisdiction because he resided in Florida at the time the court renewed the judgment. He appealed from the denial of the motion to vacate. The Court of Appeal affirms. Code of Civil Procedure section 683.170, subdivision (a) provides in part that “[t]he renewal of a judgment pursuant to this…
-
Potentially Void Judgment Reversed on the Merits
Here’s a post I’ve been saving for a time where I’m too busy to spend much time on new content. I may get a post up later in the day, but in the meantime, I’ll get on my soapbox about why I think the Court of Appeal blew it on a jurisdictional question in Holland v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., case no. C052833 (3d Dist. July 30, 2007, certified for publication August 29, 2007). The case came up on appeal from a summary judgment granted on the ground that the plaintiff’s administrative complaint was untimely. The timeliness of the administrative complaint turned on whether the Department of Fair Employment and…
-
Enforcing a Foreign Judgment
You don’t always get three positions advocated on a single issue in a single appeal. On the subject of the statute of limitations for enforcing a foreign money judgment, that’s exactly what the Court of Appeal heard in Guimaraes v. Northrup Grumman, case no. B194205 (2d Dist. Oct. 30, 2007). For the position that the “catch-all” limitations period of Code of Civil Procedure section 343 applies, Northrup relied on a 116-year-old California Supreme Court case. Not usually a good sign. And despite prevailing in the trial court, Northrup loses on appeal. The court adopts Guimaraes’s position that the intervening enactment of the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act (Code Civ. Proc.,…
-
Federal Judicial Review of Arbitration Decisions
I’m pretty sure that Judge Bea didn’t intend to give me a chuckle in the first paragraph of his opinion in Collins v. D. R. Horton, Inc., case no. 05-15737 (9th Cir. Sept. 24, 2007). But he did. Appellants contend their motion [for summary judgment] should have been granted because the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law when deciding not to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel because judicial review of an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is more limited than judicial review of a district court judgment. We hold the arbitrators did not manifestly disregard the law because no “well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable” law existed to…
-
Challenging Voidable Judgments
A short lesson in the difference between void judgments and valid but voidable ones is provided in Baron v. Fire Insurance Exchange, case no. H029830 (6th Dist. Sept. 4, 2007). While I think the court’s decision not to avoid the “valid but voidable” order in this case is the correct one, I am a bit surprised by its rationale. Two partners to a venture concerning the insured real property arbitrated a dispute between them. During the arbitration, the property suffered a fire. The insured partner submitted an insurance claim, and the arbitration award included the appointment of a receiver to take possession of the property and any insurance proceeds, including settlement proceeds from…