CALIFORNIA LABOR COMMISSIONER, DLSE, DIR. VS MATTHIAS CLASSEN, AN INDIVIDUAL

Tentative Rulings

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:

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.