Case Number: EC035138    Hearing Date: April 25, 2014    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING/04-25-14
#2
EC 035138
RODRIGUEZ v. SOULE

Defendants’ Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment

Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment is GRANTED in part. The Renewal of Judgment and Judgment entered on September 19, 2013 are vacated as to defendants Matthew Soule and Vivien Soule only, on the ground the only damages recoverable from the parents under Civil Code section 1714.1, medical expenses, were paid pursuant to a settlement by plaintiff with a joint tortfeasor. The judgment entered against defendant Micah Soule is not vacated but renewed without modification.

BACKGROUND

SUMMARY OF FACTS:
This lawsuit was filed on August 30, 2002, alleging that on September 2, 2001, at the United Artists cinema in La Canada, defendant Micah Soule threatened plaintiff Walter Rodriguez, then 12 years old, and struck him in the face with his fist.

Default was entered on January 21, 2003, and after a prove-up hearing, a court judgment by default was entered on September 16, 2003 against all named defendants except United Artists, in the sum of $12,015.63.

The file shows that on September 17, 2013, the clerk’s office sent to plaintiff a “Reject Sheet” indicating it could not process the papers submitted on 9/11/2013 for various deficiencies. The court form which stated, “Our office is cancelling the file stamped version of the Application for Renewal of Judgment filed on 09/11/13,” stricken through with a black line, and the words handwritten, “An amended application for and renewal of judgment will be accepted (per M. Flores Civil Supervisor). AE” There was also a note handwritten, “Please resubmit on or before 10-2-13.”

An Amended Application for and Renewal of Judgment was filed on September 19, 2013, and a Notice of Renewal of Judgment and Judgment filed the same date.

The matter was first heard on February 14, 2014, and was taken under submission. On March 4, 2014, the court issued a ruling adopting its written tentative previously provided as it related to the Court’s finding that plaintiff’s application to renew the judgment was timely filed.

The matter was continued to this date, with further briefing requested, on the issue of the judgment amount and whether the Judgment should be modified.

ANALYSIS:
Under CCP § 683.110:
“(a) The period of enforceability of a money judgment or a judgment for possession or sale of property may be extended by renewal of the judgment as provided in this article.”

CCP § 683.120 provides, in pertinent part:
“(a) The judgment creditor may renew a judgment by filing an application for renewal of the judgment with the court in which the judgment was entered.”

CCP § 683.170 governs vacation or modification of a renewal, and provides:
“(a) The renewal of a judgment pursuant to this article may be vacated on any ground that would be a defense to an action on the judgment, including the ground that the amount of the renewed judgment as entered pursuant to this article is incorrect, and shall be vacated if the application for renewal was filed within five years from the time the judgment was previously renewed under this article.

(b) Not later than 30 days after service of the notice of renewal pursuant to Section 683.160, the judgment debtor may apply by noticed motion under this section for an order of the court vacating the renewal of the judgment. The notice of motion shall be served on the judgment creditor. Service shall be made personally or by mail.

(c) Upon the hearing of the motion, the renewal may be ordered vacated upon any ground provided in subdivision (a), and another and different renewal may be entered, including, but not limited to, the renewal of the judgment in a different amount if the decision of the court is that the judgment creditor is entitled to renewal in a different amount.”

Here, defendants argue that the judgment should be set aside entirely because there is no liability on the part of the parents here, in effect, defendants can show that they had no advance knowledge of any violent propensities on the part of their son. However, the previous judgment was entered by default, so liability was admitted, and no defenses would have been permitted to have been raised until defendants successfully moved to have the default set aside, which they did not do.

Accordingly, the judgment should not be vacated on liability grounds. In addition, the prove up package shows that at the time of the incident, the son when speaking to the law enforcement officer, “admitted to being detained several times in the past two months for shoplifting, a curfew violation, possession of tobacco and receiving stolen property.” The son also “added that ‘It didn’t mean shit’ because he can ‘get away with’ whatever he wants.” [Case Summary, Ex. B, p. 7, filed September 15, 2003]. This appears to be sufficient evidence on which the court (Judge Stoll) could have based a liability finding against the parents, and they were in default, so no defense was permitted. The judgment is therefore not vacated on liability grounds.

Defendants also argue that any damages should have been limited to medical bills, which were compensated by a settlement with the movie theater, or, in the alternative, all damages were compensated by that settlement. Under the terms of the minor’s compromise, as approved by the court, the compromise was approved on the express condition, “That all reimburseable medical benefits be sought from the three other defaulting defendants, that the $463 be given to the minor as general damages.” [Order Approving Compromise of Claim, filed June 20, 2003]. It is not clear whether the medical bills were paid from this settlement or not. Plaintiff’s counsel claims they were, as would have been appropriate under the Probate Code, and there appears to be no reason to doubt plaintiff’s counsel on this matter.

The settlement from the movie theatre was $4,000, less costs, with $3,566.50 to go to the minor. The court was well aware of the settlement by the time of the default and entry of judgment against the other defendants, and did not indicate in its order that any offset had not been considered. Judgment was entered in the sum of $2,045.63 in special damages, plus general damages in the sum of $10,000 plus costs. Punitive damages were denied. [Order, 9/15/03].

Defendants argue that general damages are not appropriate here, under Civil Code § 1714.1, which provides:
“(a) Any act of willful misconduct of a minor that results in injury or death to another person or in any injury to the property of another shall be imputed to the parent or guardian having custody and control of the minor for all purposes of civil damages, and the parent or guardian having custody and control shall be jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damages resulting from the willful misconduct.

Subject to the provisions of subdivision (c), the joint and several liability of the parent or guardian having custody and control of a minor under this subdivision shall not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for each tort of the minor, and in the case of injury to a person, imputed liability shall be further limited to medical, dental and hospital expenses incurred by the injured person, not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). The liability imposed by this section is in addition to any liability now imposed by law.”

Defendants also rely, without citation or attaching the case to the brief, on F.P. v. Monier (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1087. Once the case was tracked down, its history shows it has been depublished and review granted on April 16, 2014, so may not be considered by the court.

However, the argument – – that there is a general obligation to offset settlement figures against judgments awarded against joint tortfeasors – – is not necessary here in connection with the parents, particularly since plaintiff’s counsel’s apparent argument is that medical expenses were paid with the settlement funds. Accordingly, since the only sums for which the parents are responsible under statute are the medical expenses, the court hereby vacates the judgment as to the parents.

The judgment here was entered against the minor as well, not just the parents, and there is substantial evidence in the prove up package that general damages were suffered, as the blow appears to have been very painful, involved humiliation, and plaintiff suffered inconveniences such as having to sit for his school portrait with his injuries. The moving papers do not appear to seek to vacate the judgment as to Micah, only his parents. In any case, the showing is not persuasive that the court here committed some kind of error or abused its discretion with respect to fixing the amount of damages in this judgment as to the minor. The motion is therefore granted only as to the parents, and denied as to the minor, with the renewal of judgment entered, with no vacation or modification of that judgment.