03CS00726

State of California EDD vs. Kathey A. King

Nature of Proceeding:    Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment and any Abstract Judgments

Filed By:   King, Kathey A.

Judgment Debtor Kathey A. King’s (“King”) “Motion to Vacate (cancel) Renewal of
Judgment & Any Abstract of Judgments” is DENIED.

King attacks Judgment Creditor EDD’s underlying money judgment for overpayments
of public disability benefits.  Judgment was originally entered on May 12, 2003, and
then renewed on November 27, 2012.  King asserts that she did not receive notice of
this matter until 2012, when EDD moved to renew the judgment.  In a supplemental
declaration submitted on November 18, 2013, King further asserts that she was
disabled and therefore entitled to the disputed public benefits that are the basis for the
judgment.  Based on these assertions, King argues that the judgment is void and
should be set aside.

Because more than two years have passed since judgment was originally entered, the
only way for King to challenge the judgment is to argue (1) extrinsic fraud or mistake or
(2) that the judgment is void on its face.  (See Trackman v. Kenney (2010) 187
Cal.App.4th 175, 181.)  King does not argue that the judgment is void on its face, and
the court’s review of its file does not disclose any facial infirmity.

King has not shown extrinsic fraud or mistake either.  The terms “extrinsic fraud” and
“extrinsic mistake” are given a “broad meaning and tend to encompass almost any set
of extrinsic circumstances which deprive a party of a fair adversary hearing.”  (In re
Marriage of Park (1980) 27 Cal.3d 337, 342.)  Extrinsic mistake occurs when a mistake
leads a court to takes an action that it never intended to take, e.g., when a court enters
a default based on a clerical error.  (See Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975,
981-983.)  Extrinsic fraud refers to  “the aggrieved party being deliberately kept in
ignorance of the action or proceeding, or in some other way fraudulently prevented
from presenting that party’s claim or defense.”  (See Hopkins & Carley v. Gens (2011)
200 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1416 [citation omitted].)  In order to prevail on a motion for
equitable relief based on extrinsic fraud or mistake, the moving party must
demonstrate a meritorious defense.  (See Kimball Avenue v. Franco (2008) 162
Cal.App.4th 1224, 1229.)

King has not shown extrinsic fraud or mistake.  Furthermore, even if this case involved
extrinsic fraud or mistake, the court would deny the motion because King has not
shown a meritorious defense.  Although she asserts that she was disabled and
therefore entitled to the disputed public benefits, she has not identified the doctor who
purportedly designated her as disabled, and she has not produced any documents to
support her assertions.  Instead she asserts that the doctor who designated her
disabled is deceased and that she does not know if there are any documents
supporting her assertions.  The court finds that her assertions of disability lack
credibility.

The court construes King’s Supplemental Declaration as an application to seal
confidential records pursuant to CRC 2.551.  Good cause to seal exists since the
documents contained within the Supplemental Declaration contains private and
sensitive information which warrants protection from public disclosure, the right of
public access to this information does not outweigh King’s interest in protecting the
information, the value of the information being shielded will likely be prejudiced if
disclosure is not limited, the proposed limit on access is narrowly tailored to only the
private and sensitive information contained in the Supplemental Declaration and there
are no less restrictive means to protect the value of the private and sensitive
information.

The clerk of the court is directed to change the security clearance on King’s
uredacted Supplemental Declaration (filed 11/18/13) so that it is not available for
public viewing.

No later than December 23, 2013, King is directed to file a copy of her
Supplemental Declaration, with all the exhibits, in which the addresses she
wishes to keep confidential are redacted.  The copy of the Supplemental
Declaration that King files must otherwise be identical to the unredacted version
she filed on November 18, 2013.

The minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order pursuant to CRC 3.1312 or
further notice is required.