Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC494759    Hearing Date: January 08, 2020    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

On October 30, 2012, Plaintiff Blanca Farias (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Downtown KFC, Inc., alleging causes of action for general negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was negligent in failing to place signs or other devices warning Plaintiff of a wet area in the entrance of its property, causing Plaintiff to slip and fall. On January 29, 2015, following a jury trial, the jury entered a verdict in favor of Defendant, and against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff, in propria persona, appealed from the adverse judgment and costs award. On June 29, 2016, the California Court of Appeal issued a remittitur granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and ordered the appeal dismissed as abandoned.

On November 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to remove the enforcement of the money judgment. Plaintiff additionally requests the court to order Defendant to pay Plaintiff $20,000.00, which was allegedly offered by Defendant to settle the case.

The motion is denied. As an initial matter, there is no proof of service with Plaintiff’s motion. Putting that aside, there is no legal basis to grant the relief sought by Plaintiff. Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 663, a trial court is authorized to vacate a judgment in a jury trial where the judgment is not consistent with or not supported by the special verdict. “As the statutory language indicates, a motion to vacate lies only where a ‘different judgment’ compelled by the facts found. [Citation.] A motion to vacate under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 663 may only be brought when ‘the trial judge draws an incorrect legal conclusion or renders an erroneous judgment upon the facts found by it to exist.” (County of Alameda v. Carleson (1971) 5 Cal.3d 730, 738.) It is a “‘remedy to be used when a trial court draws incorrect conclusions of law or renders an erroneous judgment on the basis of uncontroverted evidence.” (Plaza Hollister Ltd. Partnership v. County of San Benito (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1, 14.) However, in ruling on a motion to vacate, the court cannot in any way change any finding of fact. (Glen Hill Farm, LLC v. California Horse Racing Bd. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1302.) Even if the motion was timely, Plaintiff merely argues that she continues to experience physical limitations as a result of the injuries she alleges to have sustained from the slip and fall incident. This is an inadequate basis for the court to vacate the judgment. Nor is there any legal authority authorizing the Court to enforce a settlement offer under these circumstances. Therefore, the motion is denied. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.

DATED: January 8, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court