This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/27/2021 at 02:39:32 (UTC).

DAVID RAGO AUCTIONS, INC. DBA DAVID RAGO ARTS & AUCTION CENTER VS DEXTER HUTCHINSON, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 12/21/2020 DAVID RAGO AUCTIONS, INC DBA DAVID RAGO ARTS AUCTION CENTER filed an Other - Sister State Judgment lawsuit against DEXTER HUTCHINSON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SAMANTHA JESSNER. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4216

  • Filing Date:

    12/21/2020

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Other - Sister State Judgment

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SAMANTHA JESSNER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

DAVID RAGO AUCTIONS INC. DBA DAVID RAGO ARTS & AUCTION CENTER

Defendants

HUTCHINSON DEXTER

IDYLLIC STUDIOS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorney

COOPERSMITH STEVEN TODD

Other Attorneys

KIM EMERSON H.

 

Court Documents

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF DAVID RAGO IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DEXTER HUTCHISONS MOTION TO VACATE SISTER-STATE JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT

3/5/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF DAVID RAGO IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DEXTER HUTCHISONS MOTION TO VACATE SISTER-STATE JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition PLAINTIFF DAVID RAGO AUCTIONS, INC.S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DEXTER HUTCHISONS MOTION TO VACATE SISTER-STATE JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY ENFORCE

3/5/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition PLAINTIFF DAVID RAGO AUCTIONS, INC.S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DEXTER HUTCHISONS MOTION TO VACATE SISTER-STATE JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY ENFORCE

Motion for Order (name extension) - Motion for Order Notice of Motion and Motion to Vacate Sister-State Judgment or, in the Alternative, to Stay Enforcement of Judgment

1/29/2021: Motion for Order (name extension) - Motion for Order Notice of Motion and Motion to Vacate Sister-State Judgment or, in the Alternative, to Stay Enforcement of Judgment

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Dexter Hutchison in Support of Motion to Vacate Sister-State Judgment, or in the Alternative, to Stay Enforcement of Judgment

1/29/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Dexter Hutchison in Support of Motion to Vacate Sister-State Judgment, or in the Alternative, to Stay Enforcement of Judgment

Memorandum (name extension) - Memorandum Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Vacate Sister-State Judgment, or in the Alternative, to Stay Enforcement of Judgment

1/29/2021: Memorandum (name extension) - Memorandum Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Vacate Sister-State Judgment, or in the Alternative, to Stay Enforcement of Judgment

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

12/21/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment

12/21/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment

Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment - Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment

12/21/2020: Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment - Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

12/21/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Dexter Hutchison in Support of Motion to Vacate Sister-State Judgment

3/12/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Dexter Hutchison in Support of Motion to Vacate Sister-State Judgment

Minute Order - Minute Order (Status Conference)

7/28/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Status Conference)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Status Conference)

5/20/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Status Conference)

Judgment - Judgment

12/21/2020: Judgment - Judgment

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Order Motion to Vacate Sister-State Jud...)

3/18/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Order Motion to Vacate Sister-State Jud...)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Order Motion to Vacate Sister-State Jud...) of 03/18/2021

3/18/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Order Motion to Vacate Sister-State Jud...) of 03/18/2021

Reply (name extension) - Reply in Support of Motion to Vacate Sister-State Judgment, or in the Alternative, to Stay Enforcement of Judgment

3/11/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply in Support of Motion to Vacate Sister-State Judgment, or in the Alternative, to Stay Enforcement of Judgment

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

3/11/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice (name extension) - Notice [Amended] Notice of Motion to Vacate Sister-State Judgment, or in the alternative, to Stay Enforcement of Judgment

2/18/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice [Amended] Notice of Motion to Vacate Sister-State Judgment, or in the alternative, to Stay Enforcement of Judgment

14 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/28/2021
  • DocketOn the Petition filed by David Rago Auctions, Inc. dba David Rago Arts & Auction Center on 12/21/2020, entered Order for Dismissal without prejudice as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2021
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore Vienna Nguyen CSR #13137; Filed by: David Rago Auctions, Inc. dba David Rago Arts & Auction Center (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Status Conference)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2021
  • DocketStatus Conference scheduled for 07/28/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 07/28/2021; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2021
  • DocketStatus Conference scheduled for 07/28/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Status Conference)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2021
  • DocketPursuant to the request of plaintiff, Status Conference scheduled for 05/20/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 07/28/2021 09:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Vacate Sister-State Judgment or, in the Alternative, to Stay Enforcement of Judgment: Name Extension: blank; Exact Name: Motion to Vacate Sister-State Judgment or, in the Alternative, to Stay Enforcement of Judgment; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Vacate Sister-State Judgment or, in the Alternative, to Stay Enforcement of Judgment: Filed By: Dexter Hutchinson (Defendant); Result: Granted; Result Date: 03/18/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2021
  • DocketStatus Conference scheduled for 05/20/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
24 More Docket Entries
  • 01/29/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Dexter Hutchinson (Defendant); As to: David Rago Auctions, Inc. dba David Rago Arts & Auction Center (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Judgment: As To Parties changed from Idyllic Studios (Defendant), Dexter Hutchinson (Defendant) to Idyllic Studios (Defendant), Dexter Hutchinson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Judgment: As To Parties changed from Dexter Hutchinson (Defendant), Idyllic Studios (Defendant) to Dexter Hutchinson (Defendant), Idyllic Studios (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Samantha Jessner in Department 1 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2020
  • DocketCourt orders judgment entered for Plaintiff David Rago Auctions, Inc. dba David Rago Arts & Auction Center against Defendant Dexter Hutchinson and Defendant Idyllic Studios on the Petition filed by David Rago Auctions, Inc. dba David Rago Arts & Auction Center on 12/21/2020 for the principal amount of $19,588.69, interest of $128.00, and costs of $370.00 for a total of $20,086.69.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2020
  • DocketJudgment; Filed by: David Rago Auctions, Inc. dba David Rago Arts & Auction Center (Plaintiff); As to: Dexter Hutchinson (Defendant); Idyllic Studios (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2020
  • DocketApplication for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment; Filed by: David Rago Auctions, Inc. dba David Rago Arts & Auction Center (Plaintiff); As to: Dexter Hutchinson (Defendant); Idyllic Studios (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: David Rago Auctions, Inc. dba David Rago Arts & Auction Center (Plaintiff); As to: Dexter Hutchinson (Defendant); Idyllic Studios (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2020
  • DocketNotice Notice of Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment; Issued and Filed by: David Rago Auctions, Inc. dba David Rago Arts & Auction Center (Plaintiff); As to: Dexter Hutchinson (Defendant); Idyllic Studios (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCP04216    Hearing Date: March 18, 2021    Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge David J. Cowan

Department 1


Hearing Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021

Case Name: David Rago Auctions, Inc. v. Dexter Hutchison et al.

Case No.: 20STCP04216

Motion: Vacate or Stay Enforcement of Sister State Judgment

Moving Party: Defendant Dexter Hutchison

Responding Party: Plaintiff David Rago Auctions, Inc.

Notice: OK


Ruling: The Motion is GRANTED. The Judgment dated December 21, 2020 is VACATED.

Hutchison to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear remotely by LA Court Connect rather than in person.


BACKGROUND

On December 21, 2020, Plaintiff David Rago Auctions, Inc. dba David Rago Arts & Auction Center (“Rago Auctions”) filed an Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister State Judgment against Defendants Dexter Hutchison and Idyllic Studios based on a judgment rendered by the Superior Court of New Jersey against the Defendants on October 29, 2020. The clerk entered judgment on the sister state judgment.

On January 29, 2021, Defendant Dexter Hutchison filed a Motion to Vacate or Stay Enforcement of Sister State Judgment.

On March 5, 2021, Rago Auctions filed an Opposition.

On March 11, 2021, Hutchison filed a Reply.

 

DISCUSSION

Hutchison seek to vacate the California judgment entered upon the New Jersey sister state judgment pursuant to CCP § 1710.40(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.” The moving party bears the burden of “show[ing] by a preponderance of the evidence why it was entitled to relief.” (Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 841.) “Common defenses to enforcement of a sister state judgment include the following: (1) the judgment is not final and unconditional . . . ; (2) the judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud; (3) the judgment was rendered in excess of jurisdiction; (4) the judgment is not enforceable in the state of rendition; (5) the plaintiff is guilty of misconduct; (6) the judgment has already been paid; (and 7) suit on the judgment is barred by the statute of limitations in the state where enforcement is sought.” (Liquidator of Integrity Ins. Co. v. Hendrix (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 971, 976 (quoting Law Revision Commission comments for Section 17410.40).)

Rago Auctions’ Standing in the New Jersey Action

“Common defenses to enforcement of a sister state judgment include the following: . . . the judgment is not enforceable in the state of rendition.” (Liquidator, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at 976.) Hutchison argues the New Jersey judgment is unenforceable because ‘David Rago Auctions, Inc.’ transacted business therein under another name, ‘Rago Arts and Auction Center.’ Hutchison contends this violates New Jersey law “unless (1) the name ‘David Rago Auctions, Inc.’ was also used in the transaction; or (2) the alternate name was registered with the New Jersey Secretary of State.” (Motion, p. 9 (citing N.J. Stat. Ann. § 14A:2-2.1(1) and (6).) Hutchison contends the “Terms of Sale” contract with Rago Auctions—which was the basis for the New Jersey action—“only contains the alternative name, ‘Rago Arts and Auction Center,’” but does not mention “David Rago Auctions.” Hutchison contends there “is no evidence the alternate name was ever registered the New Jersey Secretary of State.”

On that basis, Hutchison argues the Terms of Sale violated Section 14A:2-2.1(1), which provides that “[n]o domestic corporation . . . which transacts business in this State . . . shall transact any business in this State using a name other than its actual name unless (a) [i]t also uses its actual name in the transaction[;] (b) [i]t has been authorized to transact business in this State, using an assumed name[; or] (c) [i]t has first registered the alternate name as provided in this section.” Hutchison argues the New Jersey action was thus prohibited under Section 14A:2-2.1(6), which bars a corporation from “maintain[ing] any action or proceeding in any court of this State arising out of a contract or act in which it used such alternate name until it has filed such a certificate.” In response, Rago Auctions argues it “was [not] using its trade name in any deceptive fashion” and argues the Terms of Sale still constituted a valid, actionable contract.

Rago Auctions’ argument misses the mark. While Section 14A:2-2.1(6) does not “impair the validity of any contract” wherein an alternate name is used, it explicitly prohibits a corporation from “maintain[ing] any action . . . arising out of a contract . . . in which it used such alternate name until it has filed such a certificate.” There is no exception in the statute for cases where the other contracting party knows the true identity of the corporation or where the alternate name is used in a non-deceptive manner. Rather, the statute requires the corporation to file a certificate of registration of alternate name with the Secretary of State as a prerequisite to maintaining an action “arising out of a contract . . . in which it used [an] alternate name.” Indeed, there are financial penalties for corporations who have “used an alternate name in this State contrary to the provisions of this section” beyond merely being unable to maintain claims for contracts and conduct under those alternate names. (N.J. Stat. Ann. § 14A:2-2.1(5))

There is no dispute in the evidence that the Terms of Sale makes no reference to the true corporate name, David Rago Auctions, and instead uses the alternate name of Rago Arts and Auctions Center. (Opposition, p. 5 (“[T]here is no question that David Rago Auctions, Inc. and Rago Arts and Auction Center are the same entity and that the latter name was just a trade name used for business purposes”); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 14A:2-2.1, Commissioners’ Comments (a “trade” name is an alternate name).) Therefore, unless Rago Auctions filed a certificate of registration for that name, it was not permitted to maintain an action on the Terms of Sale. There is no evidence that Rago Auctions filed a certificate of registration of alternate name with the Secretary of State before (by its own admission, repeatedly) transacting business under an alternate name with Hutchison in New Jersey. The action appears to have been barred.

Rago Auctions relies on Van Winkel v. Lefrak Newport Realty Corp. (NJ Sup. Ct. App. Div. 2010) 2010 WL 3516928, an unpublished decision by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, in arguing its use of an unregistered alternate name was not deceptive. However, the Van Winkel court did not discuss the prohibition against maintaining actions in Section 14A:2-2.1(6). As discussed above, the plain language of that Section does not create an exception where the defendant was not deceived by the alternate name. It plainly requires the filing of a certificate of registration before using the courts of New Jersey to handle disputes arising out of business transacted under an alternate name.

Hutchison has carried his burden to show that the New Jersey judgment is unenforceable as Rago Auctions lacked standing to maintain the action in the first instance. The Court notes this issue was never raised before the New Jersey court despite Hutchison’s filing of two motions to dismiss; as a result, the Court does not know how the New Jersey court would have addressed this issue. As discussed below, Hutchison contends this is due to his counsel’s incompetence. But for the reasons set out above, the plain language of Section 14A:2-2.1(6) deprived Rago Auctions of standing to maintain a claim upon the Terms of Sale absent proof of filing a certificate of registration of alternate name. Rago Auctions does not contend it filed such a certificate. The Motion to Vacate is GRANTED.

 

Rago Auctions’ Alleged Misconduct

“Common defenses to enforcement of a sister state judgment include the following: . . .  the plaintiff is guilty of misconduct.” (Liquidator, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at 976.) Hutchison argues Rago Auctions engaged in misconduct by “by wrongfully selling an item at auction to an innocent good-faith purchaser without authorization . . . and by making intentional misrepresentations to [Hutchison] in an attempt to fraudulently induce him into selling back the Chest at an undervalued price.” (Motion, p. 10.) In support, Hutchison provides a lengthy email chain. (Hutchison Decl., Ex. J.)

However, Hutchison has not provided any authority indicating that the conduct alleged is sufficient to vacate a sister-state judgment. (Central Valley Gas Storage, LLC v. Southam (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 686, 695 (“When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion.”)) The Court is not aware of any cases vacating judgment on the ground that the plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to defraud the defendant in another state (by contrast, myriad authorities support vacating a judgment for extrinsic fraud). The Terms of Sale also expressly provided Rago Auctions the right to rescind a sale notwithstanding that Hutchison was a “good-faith purchaser.” (Hutchison Decl., Ex. H (para. 27 re: rescission).) As a result, Hutchison was on notice of, and contractually provided for resolution of, adverse claims against property sold by Rago Auctions. The misconduct argument is rejected.

Competent Legal Representation in Sister State Proceedings

Finally, Hutchison contends he was deprived of “an opportunity to be heard,” and therefore a fair trial, in New Jersey. “[U]nder California law, the judgment of a sister state must be given full faith and credit if that sister state had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, and all interested parties were given reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard.” (Brinker v. Superior Court (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1296, 1299 (emphasis added).) Hutchison argues, based on “common sense,” that a “person is deprived of a fair trial ‘when the fairness of [the underlying action] is frustrated or jeopardized by the incompetence of counsel.” (Motion, p. 11 (quoting William W. Schwarzer, Dealing with Incompetent Counsel, 93 Harv. L. Rev. 633, 639 (1980)) Hutchison argues he had no opportunity to be heard because his attorney “failed to (1) engage in any form of discovery; (2) reply to Rago Auctions’ Opposition to Dexter’s Motion to Dismiss; (3) oppose Rago Auctions’ MSJ; (4) keep Dexter informed about the status of the matter; (5) explain the implications of failing to oppose the MSJ; (6) explain the significance of the court's order against Dexter; or (7) provide Dexter with information about when and how to appeal or the consequences of failing to appeal.” (Motion, p. 11-12; Hutchison Decl., para. 14.)

This argument is rejected for two principal reasons. First, the record reflects that the alleged ineffectiveness of representation was attributable to Hutchison’s repeated failure to respond to the attorney he retained. (See Rago Decl., Exh. 12 (email from Hutchison’s counsel dated September 1, 2020 informing opposing counsel that the “last  we spoke to [Hutchison] was sometime in early August”)) It is not generally possible for an attorney to litigate effectively and responsibly on behalf of an absentee client. Moreover, the alleged incompetence does not clearly rise to the level of a deprivation of due process.

Second, the cases relied upon by Hutchison are not similar to the instant case. Hutchison relies on State of Arizona ex rel. Arizona Dept. of Revenue v. Yuen (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 169, wherein the Court of Appeal affirmed an order vacating judgment on a sister state judgment on the grounds that the defendant “had been deprived of a fair trial in the Arizona proceedings and had a proper defense to the entry of the sister state judgment.” (Id. at 172.) The appellate court noted it was reviewing the decision for abuse of discretion and that the trial court had found “that Yuen (1) had no notice of the Arizona administrative proceedings; (2) did not retain Baskin as her attorney; and (3) never signed a written waiver of Baskin's conflict of interest in representing clients with opposing interests.” (Id. at 178.)

The appellate court found that “[t]he entire record supports the findings that Yuen was never served as a party in the Arizona proceeding” (Id. at 179.) There was no “indication that the . . . Arizona courts determined whether Yuen had notice of the proceedings against her or whether Arizona properly obtained jurisdiction over her person.” (Id. at 180.) There was no “evidence, such as a proof of service in the Arizona proceedings, indicating appropriate service in fact was made upon Yuen.” (Id.) On that basis, the Court of Appeal concluded “Yuen simply did not have her day in court in the Arizona proceedings,” finding the Arizona court lacked personal jurisdiction over her for lack of service, rendering the judgment “void and a nullity as against Yuen.” (Id.)

Hutchison also relies on Tsakos Shipping & Trading, S.A. v. Juniper Garden Town Homes, Ltd. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 74, wherein the defendant sought to vacate the judgment entered on the sister state judgment on the ground “that it was deprived of a fair trial because [attorney] Kohn had a conflict of interest.” (Id. at 95.) The Court of Appeal explained that “[w]hen an attorney owes a duty of loyalty to two clients, it is impossible for him or her to advise either one as to a disputed claim against the other.” (Id. at 96 (emphasis added)) The “simultaneous representation of clients with differing interests presents a classic situation of conflict,” as “[e]ach client is entitled to unimpaired loyalty of counsel.” (Id.) The Court of Appeal found an actual and unwaivable conflict of interest, concluding that “[d]iligent representation of Juniper required Kohn to raise the defense that Chabafy's execution of the guaranty agreement was outside the scope of his authority as a partner under the partnership agreement,” but that counsel did not do so due to conflicting duties to the clients. (Id.) “Dual representation under such circumstances resulted in the denial of a fair trial.” (Id.) Further, this conflict was unwaivable because “[a]s a matter of law a purported consent to dual representation of litigants with adverse interests at a contested hearing would be neither intelligent nor informed.” (Id. at 97.) Rather, “common sense dictates that it would be unthinkable to permit an attorney to assume a position at trial or hearing where he could not advocate the interests of one client without adversely injuring those of the other.” (Id.)

Both Tsakos and Yuen are facially dissimilar. In Tsakos, it was legally impossible for the attorney to adequately represent the clients due to an actual unwaivable conflict of interest. In Yuen, the undisputed evidence demonstrated that Yuen “was never served” in the action and lacked notice of the underlying administrative proceedings, totally depriving her of her day in court. Further, due to the total lack of service, the Arizona court lacked personal jurisdiction to render judgment against Yuen. By contrast, there is no evidence here that Hutchison’s counsel was conflicted. Default was initially entered against Hutchison, but due to his attorney’s efforts, he was able to vacate entry of default and continue litigating. Indeed, Hutchison filed two unsuccessful motions to dismiss the claims against him. This is a far cry from the facts of Yuen, wherein the plaintiff did not even hire an attorney and had no notice of the case. In sum, the cases are not factually similar and Hutchison cites no authority indicating mere allegations of malpractice sufficiently show lack of due process in order to vacate judgment.

Stay of Enforcement

Alternatively, Hutchison seeks to stay enforcement of the judgment “at least ‘until the judgment debtor's motion to vacate is determined’ and for as long as the interest of justice so requires.” (Motion, p. 12.) CCP sec. 1710.50(a)(3) provides that the “court shall grant a stay of enforcement where . . . [t]he judgment debtor has made a motion to vacate pursuant to Section 1710.40.” In that case, “enforcement shall be stayed until the judgment debtor's motion to vacate is determined.” (CCP sec. 1710.50(a)(3).) CCP sec. 1710.50(a)(4) also has a catch-all stay provision encompassing “[a]ny other circumstance . . . where the interests of justice require a stay of enforcement.” However, a stay is unnecessary here because the Motion to Vacate has been granted and Hutchison offered no other circumstances requiring a stay.

CONCLUSION

 

The Motion is GRANTED. The Judgment is VACATED.

Hutchison to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer KIM EMERSON H.