On 04/19/2018 CALIFORNIA LABOR COMMISSIONER, DLSE, DIR filed an Other - Other Judgment lawsuit against MATTHIAS CLASSEN, AN INDIVIDUAL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
*******1803
04/19/2018
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
VAN DYK TARA
MATTHIAS CLASSEN AN INDIVIDUAL
CLASSEN MATTHIAS
UPSTREAM CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC
CALIFORNIA LABOR COMMISSIONER DLSE DIR.
YEARGIN COLE WILLIAM
3/11/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Jud...)
2/13/2020: Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: to set aside judgment
11/20/2019: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment - Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment
11/20/2019: Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal - Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal BV033238
9/30/2019: Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal - Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal
4/19/2018: Request For Entry of Judgment (Enforcement of Judgment)
4/19/2018: Judgment
DocketUpdated -- Appeal - Remittitur - Affirmed BV033238: As To Parties: removed
DocketAppeal - Remittitur - Affirmed BV033238; Filed by: Clerk
DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Jud...) of 03/11/2020; Filed by: Clerk
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Jud...)
DocketHearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5) scheduled for 03/11/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 03/11/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied
DocketOpposition Assignee's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Judgment; Filed by: Upstream Capital Investments, LLC (Assignee)
DocketMotion re: to set aside judgment; Filed by: MATTHIAS CLASSEN, AN INDIVIDUAL (Defendant)
DocketWrit - Return ( Partially Satisfied);; Costs Credits: 12.00; Interest Credits: 0.00; Principal Credits: 347.84; Possession: No; Judgment Satisfaction Type: Partially Satisfied
DocketUpdated -- Writ of Execution (Orange): Filed By: TARA VAN DYK (Plaintiff); Result: Returned and Filed; Result Date: 02/10/2020
DocketHearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5) scheduled for 03/11/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25
DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: MATTHIAS CLASSEN, AN INDIVIDUAL (Appellant)
DocketAppeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103; Filed by: MATTHIAS CLASSEN, AN INDIVIDUAL (Appellant)
DocketWrit of Execution (Orange); Issued by: TARA VAN DYK (Plaintiff); As to: MATTHIAS CLASSEN, AN INDIVIDUAL (Defendant); County: Orange
DocketAssignment of Judgment; Filed by: TARA VAN DYK (Plaintiff); As to: MATTHIAS CLASSEN, AN INDIVIDUAL (Defendant)
DocketMemorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest; Filed by: TARA VAN DYK (Plaintiff); As to: MATTHIAS CLASSEN, AN INDIVIDUAL (Defendant); Interest: 1493.51; Service Date: 07/17/2019
DocketCase assigned to in ROOM 118 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
DocketJudgment; Filed by: Clerk
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: CALIFORNIA LABOR COMMISSIONER, DLSE, DIR. (Plaintiff)
DocketRequest For Entry of Judgment (Enforcement of Judgment); Filed by: CALIFORNIA LABOR COMMISSIONER, DLSE, DIR. (Plaintiff); As to: MATTHIAS CLASSEN, AN INDIVIDUAL (Defendant)
DocketCourt orders judgment entered for Plaintiff TARA VAN DYK against Defendant MATTHIAS CLASSEN, AN INDIVIDUAL on the Complaint filed by CALIFORNIA LABOR COMMISSIONER, DLSE, DIR. on 04/19/2018 for the principal amount of $11,505.26, interest of $107.01, and costs of $395.00 for a total of $12,007.27.
Case Number: 18STCP01803 Hearing Date: March 11, 2020 Dept: 25
MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT
(CCP § 473)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant / Judgment Debtor Matthias Classen’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment is DENIED.
OPPOSITION: Filed on February 20, 2020
REPLY: None filed as of March 9, 2020 [X] None
ANALYSIS:
Background
On February 14, 2018, the Labor Commissioner of the State of California issued an award in favor of Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Tara Van Dyk (“Plaintiff”) in the amount of $17,756.04 and against Defendant/Judgment Debtor Matthias Classen (“Defendant”). Defendant did not appear or file an answer to the claim filed by Plaintiff with the Labor Commissioner’s office. (Request that Clerk Enter Judgment; Order, Decision, or Award of the Labor Commissioner, p. 2.)
On April 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Request to Enter Judgment and Judgment on Final Order, Decision or Award of the Labor Commission against Defendant. That same day, the deputy clerk entered judgment against Defendant in the amount of $12,007.27 (the “Judgment”). (4/19/18 Judgment.)
On July 17, 2019, Plaintiff assigned the Judgment to Upstream Capital Investment, LLC (“Assignee of Record”). On July 23, 2019, Assignee of Record obtained a Writ of Execution against Defendant in the amount of $13,525.78. (7/23/19 Writ.)
On September 25, 2019, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal for a Limited Case. On November 20, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Set Aside Judgment. On January 29, 2018, the Court continued the hearing because Defendant failed to serve Plaintiff with the moving papers. (1/29/20 Minute Order.) The Court also requested Defendant to brief the Court on whether it had jurisdiction to set aside a judgment entered by the Labor Commissioner for failure to properly serve notice of the underlying claim. (Id.)
On February 13, 2020, Defendant filed supplemental papers titled Motion to Set Aside Judgment Continued (the “Motion”). On February 20, 2020, Assignee of Record filed an Opposition. To date, no reply brief has been filed.
Discussion
A. Effect of Defendant’s Appeal
Code of Civil Procedure section 916, provides, in pertinent part:
“[T]he perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 916, subd. (a).)
Here, Defendant filed an appeal with the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court. (9/30/19 Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal.) After filing the appeal, Defendant filed the instant Motion seeking to set aside the judgment for lack of proper service. However, a “trial court’s power to enforce, vacate, or modify an appealed judgment or order is suspended while [an] appeal is pending.” (Elsea v. Saberi (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 625, 629.) Thus, the Court does not have jurisdiction to set aside the Judgment at this time.
Accordingly, the Court does not consider the merits of Defendant’s arguments regarding service.
Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant / Judgment Debtor Matthias Classen’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment is DENIED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Case Number: 18STCP01803 Hearing Date: January 29, 2020 Dept: 25
MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE JUDGMENT
(CCP § 473.5)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment is CONTINUED to MARCH 11, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25.
Defendant is ordered to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the defects in his motion as discussed herein. Defendant should file a proof of service demonstrating the moving papers were served on the opposing party. Failure to comply with the Court’s orders may result in the motion being placed off calendar or denied. Any opposition and reply papers may be filed and served per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.
I. Background
On February 14, 2018, the Labor Commissioner of the State of California issued an award in favor of Plaintiff Tara Van Dyk (“Plaintiff”) in the amount of $17,756.04 and against Defendant/Judgment Debtor Matthias Classen (“Defendant”). On April 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Request to Enter Judgment and Judgment on Final Order, Decision or Award of the Labor Commission against Defendant. That same day, the deputy clerk entered judgment against Defendant in the amount of $12,007.27. (4/19/18 Judgment.) On July 31, 2018, the Court ordered judgment entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the same amount, although there is no document on file reflecting this.
On July 17, 2019, Plaintiff assigned the judgment to Upstream Capital Investment, LLC (“Assignee of Record”). On July 23, 2019, Assignee of Record obtained a Writ of Execution against Defendant in the amount of $13,525.78. (7/23/19 Writ.)
On September 25, 2019, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal for a Limited Case. On November 20, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Set Aside Judgment (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed.
II. Legal Standard & Discussion
As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendant has not included a proof of service demonstrating this Motion was served on the opposing party. Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subd. (a) requires that written notice for motions. The moving and supporting papers must be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing, plus 5 calendar days if the documents are mailed to a California address. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Thus, Defendant has not satisfied notice requirements for motions.
Defendant argues that he was never served with neither the claim made to the labor board nor the notice of entry of judgment. (Mot., p. 2.) However, Defendant has not cited any statutory authority or case law that supports his argument that he is entitled to have the judgment entered on April 11, 2018 set aside. Indeed, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113 subdivision (b) mandates that “[t]he memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1113, subd. (b).) The Court also notes that Defendant includes arguments that are more appropriate for his pending appeal. Specifically, he argues at length that Plaintiff’s Labor Commission award was based on misrepresentations, and states that he has evidence to support his argument. (Mot., p. 2-3.) However, for purposes of the instant Motion, Defendant should focus on arguing and presenting evidence demonstrating he was never properly served.
However, it is unclear whether the Court has jurisdiction to set aside the judgment in this matter. Thus, Defendant is requested to brief the Court on the whether this Court has jurisdiction to set aside a judgment entered by the Labor Commission for failure to properly serve notice of the underlying claim.
III. Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment is CONTINUED to MARCH 11, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25. Defendant is ordered to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the defects in his motion as discussed herein. Defendant should file a proof of service demonstrating the moving papers were served on the opposing party. Failure to comply with the Court’s orders may result in the motion being placed off calendar or denied. Any opposition and reply papers may be filed and served per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Case Number: 18STCP01803 Hearing Date: January 28, 2020 Dept: 25
MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE JUDGMENT
(CCP § 473.5)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment is CONTINUED to MARCH 11, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25.
Defendant is ordered to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the defects in his motion as discussed herein. Defendant should file a proof of service demonstrating the moving papers were served on the opposing party. Failure to comply with the Court’s orders may result in the motion being placed off calendar or denied. Any opposition and reply papers may be filed and served per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.
I. Background
On February 14, 2018, the Labor Commissioner of the State of California issued an award in favor of Plaintiff Tara Van Dyk (“Plaintiff”) in the amount of $17,756.04 and against Defendant/Judgment Debtor Matthias Classen (“Defendant”). On April 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Request to Enter Judgment and Judgment on Final Order, Decision or Award of the Labor Commission against Defendant. That same day, the deputy clerk entered judgment against Defendant in the amount of $12,007.27. (4/19/18 Judgment.) On July 31, 2018, the Court ordered judgment entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the same amount, although there is no document on file reflecting this.
On July 17, 2019, Plaintiff assigned the judgment to Upstream Capital Investment, LLC (“Assignee of Record”). On July 23, 2019, Assignee of Record obtained a Writ of Execution against Defendant in the amount of $13,525.78. (7/23/19 Writ.)
On September 25, 2019, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal for a Limited Case. On November 20, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Set Aside Judgment (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed.
II. Legal Standard & Discussion
As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendant has not included a proof of service demonstrating this Motion was served on the opposing party. Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subd. (a) requires that written notice for motions. The moving and supporting papers must be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing, plus 5 calendar days if the documents are mailed to a California address. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Thus, Defendant has not satisfied notice requirements for motions.
Defendant argues that he was never served with neither the claim made to the labor board nor the notice of entry of judgment. (Mot., p. 2.) However, Defendant has not cited any statutory authority or case law that supports his argument that he is entitled to have the judgment entered on April 11, 2018 set aside. Indeed, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113 subdivision (b) mandates that “[t]he memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1113, subd. (b).) The Court also notes that Defendant includes arguments that are more appropriate for his pending appeal. Specifically, he argues at length that Plaintiff’s Labor Commission award was based on misrepresentations, and states that he has evidence to support his argument. (Mot., p. 2-3.) However, for purposes of the instant Motion, Defendant should focus on arguing and presenting evidence demonstrating he was never properly served.
However, it is unclear whether the Court has jurisdiction to set aside the judgment in this matter. Thus, Defendant is requested to brief the Court on the whether this Court has jurisdiction to set aside a judgment entered by the Labor Commission for failure to properly serve notice of the underlying claim.
III. Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment is CONTINUED to MARCH 11, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25. Defendant is ordered to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the defects in his motion as discussed herein. Defendant should file a proof of service demonstrating the moving papers were served on the opposing party. Failure to comply with the Court’s orders may result in the motion being placed off calendar or denied. Any opposition and reply papers may be filed and served per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases