This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/25/2020 at 07:42:01 (UTC).

DEADSOXY, LLC VS SOXNET, INC.

Case Summary

On 11/06/2019 DEADSOXY, LLC filed an Other - Sister State Judgment lawsuit against SOXNET, INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4838

  • Filing Date:

    11/06/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Other - Sister State Judgment

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

DEADSOXY LLC

Defendant

SOXNET INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

BEGOVIC SASHA

JACOBS JEFFREY GEORGE

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

7/20/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Tentative Ruling re Motion to Set Aside Sister State Default Judgment per CCP 1710.40 and Per Equitable Grounds

7/20/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Tentative Ruling re Motion to Set Aside Sister State Default Judgment per CCP 1710.40 and Per Equitable Grounds

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Entry of Judgment

7/22/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Entry of Judgment

Judgment - Judgment

11/21/2019: Judgment - Judgment

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non-Receipt

7/6/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non-Receipt

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473))

7/15/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473))

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/17/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

2/28/2020: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Notice (name extension) - Notice Defendant's Notice of Non-Receipt

3/3/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Defendant's Notice of Non-Receipt

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

3/10/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

1/16/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: Notice of Motion and Motion to Set Aside Sister-State-Default Judgment Per C.C.P. 1710.40 and per Equitable Grounds; Declaration of Miri P. Ryu; Memorandum of

1/16/2020: Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: Notice of Motion and Motion to Set Aside Sister-State-Default Judgment Per C.C.P. 1710.40 and per Equitable Grounds; Declaration of Miri P. Ryu; Memorandum of

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

11/22/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration

11/6/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/6/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

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

11/6/2019: 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

11/6/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

7 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/23/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Notice OF ENTRY OF RULING RE: MOTION TO SET ASIDE SISTER-STATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT PER C.C.P. 1710.40 AND PER EQUITABLE GROUNDS: Name Extension changed from of Entry of Judgment to OF ENTRY OF RULING RE: MOTION TO SET ASIDE SISTER-STATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT PER C.C.P. 1710.40 AND PER EQUITABLE GROUNDS; As To Parties changed from SoxNet, Inc. (Defendant) to SoxNet, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Notice OF ENTRY OF RULING RE: MOTION TO SET ASIDE SISTER-STATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT PER C.C.P. 1710.40 AND PER EQUITABLE GROUNDS: As To Parties changed from SoxNet, Inc. (Defendant) to DeadSoxy, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Entry of Judgment; Filed by: DeadSoxy, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: SoxNet, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: SoxNet, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2020
  • DocketNotice of Tentative Ruling re Motion to Set Aside Sister State Default Judgment per CCP 1710.40 and Per Equitable Grounds; Filed by: SoxNet, Inc. (Defendant); As to: DeadSoxy, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Notice of Non-Receipt: As To Parties changed from SoxNet, Inc. (Defendant) to DeadSoxy, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473))

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- On the Petition filed by DeadSoxy, LLC on 11/06/2019, judgment entered on 11/22/2019 is vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2020
  • DocketOn the Petition filed by DeadSoxy, LLC on 11/06/2019, judgment entered on 11/22/2019 as to SoxNet, Inc. is

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473) scheduled for 07/15/2020 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 07/15/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
11 More Docket Entries
  • 01/10/2020
  • DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 94 - Hon. James E. Blancarte; Reason: Other

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2019
  • DocketNotice Notice of Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment; Issued and Filed by: DeadSoxy, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: SoxNet, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2019
  • DocketCourt orders judgment entered for Plaintiff DeadSoxy, LLC against Defendant SoxNet, Inc. on the Petition filed by DeadSoxy, LLC on 11/06/2019 for the principal amount of $14,475.38 and costs of $370.00 for a total of $14,845.38.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2019
  • DocketJudgment; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2019
  • DocketUpdated -- Judgment: Status Date changed from 11/22/2019 to 11/21/2019; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2019
  • DocketCase assigned in ROOM 118 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2019
  • DocketDeclaration Declaration; Filed by: DeadSoxy, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: SoxNet, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: DeadSoxy, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: SoxNet, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2019
  • DocketApplication for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment; Filed by: DeadSoxy, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: SoxNet, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STCP04838    Hearing Date: July 15, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO SET ASIDE SISTER-STATE JUDGMENT

(CCP § 1710.40)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Judgment Debtor Soxnet, Inc.’s Motion to Set Aside Sister-State Judgment is GRANTED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of July 13, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 13, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On May 14, 2018, the District Court of the 101st Judicial Distract in Dallas County, Texas entered a final default judgment in the amount of $14,475.11, plus post-judgment interest and taxable court costs (the “Judgment”) in favor of Judgment Creditor Deadsoxy, LLC (“Judgment Creditor”) and against Judgment Debtor Soxnet, Inc. (“Judgment Debtor”). (11/6/19 Application, Exh. B.)

On November 6, 2019, Judgment Creditor filed an Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment against Judgment Debtor. On November 22, 2019, the Court entered Judgment against Judgment Debtor in the amount of $14,845.38, which consisted of damages of $14,475.38 and costs of $370.00. (11/22/19 Judgment.)

On January 16, 2020, Judgment Debtor filed the instant Motion to Set Aside Sister-State Judgment per CCP 1710.40 and Per Equitable Grounds (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Request for Judicial Notice

Judgment Debtor requests that the Court take judicial notice of (1) Texas Rule of Civil Procedure section 106, and (2) Texas Rule of Civil Procedure section 108.

Judgment Debtor’s request is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (a).)

  1. Legal Standard

“Article IV, section 1 of the United States Constitution provides that [f]ull Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State. It has long been the law that the judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity, and effect in every other court in the United States, which it had in the state where it was pronounced. [Citations.] Therefore, under 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. [Citations.]” (Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 837.)

A judgment creditor can apply to domesticate a sister-state judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1710.20. Once entered, a domesticated sister-state judgment “has the same effect as an original money judgment of the court and may be enforced or satisfied in like manner.” (Code Civ. Proc., §1710.35.) “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1710.40, subd. (a).)

A motion to vacate a sister state judgment must be made no later 30 days after service of notice of entry of judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1710.40, subd. (b).) The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating it is entitled to relief. (Tsakos Shipping & Trading S.A. v. Juniper Garden Town Homes, LTD. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 74, 88.) However, “[t]he 30-day limit does not apply where the judgment debtor was not served properly with process in the sister-state action.” (Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 839.) In addition, when a court lacks jurisdiction in a fundamental sense, an ensuing judgment is void, and thus vulnerable to direct or collateral attack at any time. [Citation.]” (Ibid.)

  1. Discussion

A. Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Judgment Debtor states that the underlying action arises from an order of socks placed by Judgment Creditor through a third party, Tina Call (“Call”). (Mot., p. 2, Ryu Decl., ¶ 6.) Judgment Debtor first argues that Texas did not acquire personal jurisdiction over it because Judgment Debtor, a California Corporation, did not have sufficient minimum contacts with Texas. (Mot., p. 10.)

Texas courts may assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the Texas long-arm statute authorizes jurisdiction and that jurisdiction is consistent with federal and state due process standards. (Guardian Royal Exchange Assur., Ltd. v. English China Clays, PLC, 815 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex.1991).) “Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, jurisdiction is proper if a nonresident defendant established ‘minimum contacts’ with Texas and maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ [Citation.]” (American Type Culture Collection, Inc. v. Coleman, 83 S.W.3d 801, 806 (Tex.2002).) The minimum-contacts analysis protects defendants from being haled into court when those defendants’ relationship is too attenuated to justify an exercise of jurisdiction. (Schlobohm v. Schapiro, 784 S.W.2d 355, 357 (Tex.1990).)

“The minimum-contacts analysis requires that a defendant ‘purposefully avail’ itself of the privilege of conducting activities within Texas, thus invoking the benefits and protections of [Texas] laws. [Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewiczi, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985).] The defendant’s activities, whether they consist of direct acts within Texas or conduct outside Texas, may justify a conclusion that the defendant could reasonably anticipate being called into a Texas court. [World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980).] A defendant is not subject to jurisdiction [in Texas] if its Texas contacts are random, fortuitous, or attenuated.”

(American Type Culture, supra, 83 S.W.3d at 806.)

Judgment Debtor provides a declaration from Miri P. Ryu (“Ryu”), one of Judgment Debtor’s officers, stating that Judgment Debtor is a California corporation and that it has always conducted business from California. (Mot., Ryu Decl., ¶ 3.) Ryu also states that Judgment Debtor did not negotiate or enter into a contract in Texas, that it has not directly or intentionally done business in Texas, and that it has never had any intentions of doing business in Texas. (Id. at ¶ 10-11.) Ryu further states that the basis of Judgment Creditor’s Complaint was a single transaction facilitated by a third-party broker located in North Carolina. (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 6, Exhs. 2-4.) Judgment Debtor’s evidence demonstrates that on October 24, 2016, it billed Judgment Creditor for three orders of socks, totaling 15,500 packs. (Id. at ¶6, Exh. 2-4.) One of the orders was shipped directly to Judgment Creditor in Texas while the other two were shipped to locations in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and Troy, Michigan. (Id.)

Judgment Creditor has not filed an opposition to this Motion or disputed Judgment Debtor’s arguments or evidence. Thus, the Court finds that Judgment Debtor’s single contact with Texas, arising from a sale brokered by a third party located in North Carolina is insufficient to establish minimum contacts.

B. Improper/Lack of Service of Summons

Although the Court has already concluded setting aside the sister-state judgment is justified on the basis that Texas courts had no personal jurisdiction over Judgment Debtor, the Court notes the Judgment could also be set aside due to improper service of process.

Judgment Debtor argues it was improperly served by substituted service and as a result, the judgment is void. (Mot., p. 7, Ryu Decl., 2, Exh. 5.) Specifically, Judgment Debtor argues that Judgment Creditor failed to obtain court approval to sub-serve Judgment Debtor as required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at p. 8.)

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure section 106 provides:

“(a) Unless the citation [i.e., summons] or an order of the court otherwise directs, the citation shall be served by any person authorized by Rule 103 by

(1) delivering to the defendant, in person, a true copy of the citation with the date of delivery endorsed thereon with a copy of the petition attached thereto, or

(2) mailing to the defendant by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, a true copy of the citation with a copy of the petition attached thereto.

(b) Upon motion supported by affidavit stating the location of the defendant's usual place of business or usual place of abode or other place where the defendant can probably be found and stating specifically the facts showing that service has been attempted under either (a)(1) or (a)(2) at the location named in such affidavit but has not been successful, the court may authorize service:

(1) by leaving a true copy of the citation, with a copy of the petition attached, with anyone over sixteen years of age at the location specified in such affidavit, or

(2) in any other manner that the affidavit or other evidence before the court shows will be reasonably effective to give the defendant notice of the suit.”

(Tex. R. Civ. P. § 106.)

An out-of-state defendant must be served in the same manner as a resident defendant. (Tex. R. Civ. P. § 108.) In addition, “strict compliance with the rules of service of citation [must] affirmatively appear on the record in order for a default judgment to withstand direct attack.” (Primate Const., Inc. v. Silver, 884 S.W.2d 151, 152 (Tex. 1994).)

Here, Judgment Debtor submits the proof of service filed by Judgment Creditor in the Texas action. (Mot., Ryu Decl., ¶ 12, Exh. 5.) It demonstrates Juan Juarez Medina, a registered California process server, served Ryu via substitute service at 235 S. 6th Ave., La Puente, CA 91746 (the “La Puente Address”) by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint with a person apparently in charge of Judgment Debtor’s office. (Id.) The server thereafter mailed a copy of the citation via first-class mail to the La Puente Address. (Id.) Notably, the proof of service does not include a copy of a court order approving substitute service as required by Texas Rule section 106, and Judgment Creditor has not opposed this Motion to provide evidence it did do so. In addition, although service by mail is permitted by Section 106, subdivision (a)(2), it must be done via registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. Thus, the Court finds that Judgment Creditor failed to strictly comply with the rules of service of the citation. (Primate Const., Inc. v. Silver, 884 S.W.2d 151, 152 (Tex. 1994).)

As Judgment Debtor was not properly served with process in the sister-state action, this provides an alternative basis for vacating the sister-state judgment.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Judgment Debtor Soxnet, Inc.’s Motion to Set Aside Sister-State Judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.