This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/12/2018 at 13:01:53 (UTC).

The State Bar Of California Vs James Harvey Tipler, (sbn 80748)

Case Summary

On 03/08/2018 a Other - Other Judgment case was filed by The State Bar Of California against James Harvey Tipler Sbn 80748 in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0633

  • Filing Date:

    03/08/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Other - Other Judgment

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

The State Bar Of California

Defendant

Tipler James Harvey Sbn 80748

 

Court Documents

Judgment

3/8/2018: Judgment

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/11/2018
  • Case assigned to in ROOM 118 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • Request For Entry of Judgment (Enforcement of Judgment); Filed by: THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA (Plaintiff); As to: JAMES HARVEY TIPLER, (SBN 80748) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • Court orders judgment entered for Plaintiff THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA against Defendant JAMES HARVEY TIPLER (SBN 80748) on the Complaint filed by THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA on 03/08/2018 for the principal amount of $9,387.00 and costs of $250.00 for a total of $9,637.00.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2018
  • Judgment; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STCP00633    Hearing Date: January 30, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO DISMISS/ABATE/VACATE

(CCP § 473)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Provide Documents is PLACED OFF CALENDAR. In addition, Defendant’s Amended Motion to Vacate is DENIED.

OPPOSITION: Filed on March 11, 2019

REPLY: Filed on November 26, 2019  

I. Background

On March 8, 2018, Plaintiff State Bar of California (“Plaintiff”) filed a request for entry of a money judgment pursuant to two disciplinary matters against Defendant James Harvey Tippler (“Defendant”). Judgment was entered by a deputy clerk on that date in the amount of $9,637.00 (3/08/18 Order.) The Court ordered the entry of judgment in that same amount on April 11, 2018, but there is no signed order or other document reflecting this on file. However, Defendant was not served with the request for entry of judgment until September 24, 2018, after judgment had already been entered. (9/25/18 Proof of Service.)

On January 25, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss/Abate/Vacate, arguing that Plaintiff’s action was “premature” and should be dismissed, or alternatively, should be abated. (1/25/19 Mot., p. 5. ¶ 7.) On March 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Opposition. On March 15, 2019, Defendant submitted a Memorandum of Points & Authorities and a Declaration in support of his Motion.

On March 19, 2019, Judge Wendy Chang recused herself from presiding over this case, citing a potential conflict of interest, and the case was reassigned to Judge Samantha Jessner. (3/19/19 Order.) On April 3, 2019, the case was reassigned back to Department 94 to Judge James Blancarte. (4/3/19 Minute Order.) On April 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed Exhibits to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss/Abate/Vacate.

On June 3, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to August 12, 2019. (6/3/19 Minute Order.) The Court found that Defendant’s “motion for relief [was] not supported by any legal basis” and “[s]imply asked the court to dismiss or abate the action, and to vacate the judgment entered on the grounds that such relief is required by due process.” (Id.) The Court ordered Defendant to file and serve supplemental papers and supporting evidence to address the deficiencies discussed and noted that failure to do so would result in the motion being denied or placed off calendar. (Id.)

On June 4, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion to Require Plaintiff to provide Defendant with a Copy of Opposition Papers Apparently Filed on March 11, 2019 or, Alternatively, to Continue Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (the “Motion to Provide Documents”).

On August 12, 2019, the Court found that Defendant did not file the requested supplemental papers addressing the Court’s concerns as set forth in the June 3 Order, and found that Defendant had not demonstrated a legal basis for the relief sought. (8/12/19 Minute Order.) As a result, the Motion was placed off calendar. (Id.)

On October 28, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Amended Motion to Vacate (the “Amended Motion”), apparently citing Code of Civil Procedure section 473 as a basis for the relief requested. That same day, pursuant to Defendant’s request, the Court set hearings for Defendant’s Amended Motion to Vacate and Motion to Provide Documents for January 30, 2020.

Finally, on November 26, 2019, Defendant filed an Addendum to Defendant’s Motion to Vacate and Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition (“Addendum”).

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

1. Motion to Provide Documents

In Defendant’s Amended Motion, he notes at the outset that Defendant has received the pleadings requested from the Plaintiff and for which the Motion to Provide Documents had been filed. (Am. Mot., ¶ 2.) Defendant states that there is “no need for the Order requested by Defendant in his Motion.” (Id.) Accordingly, the Motion to Provide Documents is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

2. Amended Motion to Vacate Judgment

Defendant seeks relief from the judgment entered against him under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. (Am. Mot.,. p. 4.) However, he does not substantively discuss why Section 473 is applicable or identify which subsection entitles him to the relief he seeks. For example, section 473(b) provides for relief from entry of default, judgment, or order based on a party’s “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” while subsection (d) provides for relief from “void judgments.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.) Indeed, the extent of Defendant’s discussion of Section 473 is limited to his statement that “CCP 473 may be applicable.” (Am. Mot., p. 4, ¶ 16.) (Italics added.) Defendant then states that pursuant to the “mailbox rule,” his Motion is timely. (Id., ¶ 16-17.)

Defendant spends the first 13 paragraphs of his Amended Motion discussing the issues he had with service of Plaintiff’s opposition, opposition exhibits, and supporting declaration and discussing the administration of mail in Florida’s correctional facilities. (Am. Mot., ¶ 1-13.) However, none of these issues provide support for Defendant’s argument he is entitled to vacating the underlying judgment.

In his Addendum, Defendant again engages in a recitation of facts rather than a discussion of law pursuant to relevant authority. Indeed, he states that he was not timely notified before judgment. (Addendum, p. 2, ¶ 6.) As a result, he argues, the judgment “was never properly entered.” (Id., p. 3, ¶ 13.) However, Defendant does not cite any supporting statutory authority or case law. As previously admonished in the August 12, 2019 Minute Order, Defendant is aware that 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).) Thus, the Court finds that Defendant still has not demonstrated a legal basis for the relief he seeks.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Amended Motion to Vacate is DENIED.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Provide Documents is PLACED OFF CALENDAR. In addition, Defendant’s Amended Motion to Vacate is DENIED.

Clerk is to give notice to all parties.