Case Number: BS147016    Hearing Date: July 10, 2014    Dept: 1

#1 – Tharpe & Ronquillo v. Marquez (BS 147 016)

On February 4, 2014, Plaintiffs R. Bruce Tharpe and Christopher James Ronquillo applied to the Los Angeles County Superior Court for entry of judgment on a sister-state-judgment, namely, a $48,650.00 judgment entered against Defendant David Marquez in Brownsville, Texas, on December 19, 2012. The judgment was entered on February 7, 2014 and, on June 12, 2014, this court heard the Defendant’s motion to vacate the sister-state-judgment.

According to the Defendant’s motion, the Plaintiffs alleged in their Texas lawsuit that the Defendant – a resident of Los Angeles having no Texas contacts – was liable for insurance fraud, associated with a policy issued in Tennessee, by an Alabama carrier, with respect to the Pro Wrestling Organization, LLC, which is a North Carolina entity. Given these facts, the Defendant concluded that the Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in a state and county that had no relationship to the Defendant’s conduct, which was also not implicated in any sort of insurance fraud by the facts alleged in the Plaintiffs’ Texas complaint. The Defendant, therefore, argued that he was not subject to the Texas court’s personal jurisdiction and, consequently, the Plaintiffs cannot enforce the sister-state judgment entered on February 7, 2014.

The Plaintiffs, in turn, assured the court in their opposition papers that the Defendant had already made this very same argument before the Texas court, which ruled against him on this question. Assuming that to be the case, the Plaintiffs argued that the Texas court’s determination of personal jurisdiction could not be questioned by this court. However, the Texas court’s determination was evidenced only by a photocopy of what appears to be a Texas court docket, which included a March 13, 2012 entry that described a hearing conducted on the issue of the Defendant’s jurisdictional objections; the entry stated that the Defendant’s application on the jurisdictional issue was denied. Judicially noticeable evidence consisting of the Texas court’s March 13, 2012 findings and order was nonetheless promised by the Plaintiffs, if this court would grant them a short continuance.

Bearing in mind that the burden of showing the invalidity of the judgment is upon the party attacking the judgment [St. Sava Mission Corp. v. Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1354, 1364], the court was then inclined to DENY the Defendant’s motion if offered judicially noticeable evidence of the Texas court’s March 13, 2012 findings and order on the question of its personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. Where another state has fully and fairly litigated its jurisdiction, and has finally decided the question – as is alleged here, a second state may not reexamine the question but must give the judgment of the first state full faith and credit. St. Sava Mission Corp. v. Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1354, 1364. However, where the first state has not litigated and decided the question, the jurisdiction of a court rendering a judgment is open to inquiry under proper averments, when questioned in the court of another state. Id. The party against whom the sister-state judgment has been rendered is thus not forced to go to the state of the rendition of the judgment for relief. Id.

So, this court continued its hearing of the Defendant’s motion and ordered further briefing from the parties on the issue of judicially noticeable evidence of the Texas court’s determination of its personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. Further briefing from the Defendant was ordered filed by July 1, 2014, and further briefing from the Plaintiffs was ordered filed by noon of July 8, 2014. Also, any further briefing was ordered served by facsimile transmission or e-mail service.

The Defendant’s further briefing was timely filed, but served by normal post – contrary to this court’s express order. The Defendant’s further briefing also merely attempts to reinforce his earlier motion argument that he was not subject to the Texas court’s personal jurisdiction; his further briefing does not even address the issue of judicially noticeable evidence.

The Plaintiffs’ further briefing, on the other hand, offers the court a notarized, supplemental declaration from Plaintiff R. Bruce Tharpe, a licensed Texas attorney, who attests to the March 13, 2012 proceedings in the Texas State Court. Plaintiff Tharpe also authenticates a photocopied Nunc Pro Tunc Order of the Texas State Court regarding the March 13, 2012 proceedings, as well as a photocopied portion of a court reporter’s transcript of those proceedings.

In view of the foregoing, the Defendant’s further briefing is disregarded for failure to observe the June 12, 2014 briefing service order and for failure to address the issue raised by this court. This court additionally admits the Plaintiffs’ new evidence of the Texas court’s March 13, 2012 findings and order.

Accordingly, this court hereby DENIES the Defendant’s motion to vacate the sister-state-judgment.