2008-90022968-CL-OE

State of California, EDD vs. Orvelle E. Robinson

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment

Filed By: Robinson, Orvelle E.

Defendant and Judgment Debtor Orvelle E. Robinson’s motion to vacate renewal of judgment is DENIED.

In September 2008, Plaintiff and Judgment Creditor EDD obtained a judgment against Robinson for overpayment of unemployment benefits. EDD obtained the judgment after mailing the requisite notices to Robinson at his address on file. Robinson did not appeal the assessment of overpayments, and EDD obtained its judgment by way of a Certificate for Summary Judgment pursuant to Unemployment Insurance Code § 1379. EDD recently renewed the judgment.

As it turns out, Robinson was incarcerated between 2007 and 2018 and contends he never received actual notice of the judgment or underlying proceedings. The court rejects his argument that the renewed judgment should be vacated due to lack of jurisdiction.

Lack of actual notice is a basis for setting aside a default judgment. (See CCP §

473.5.) EDD, however, did not obtain its judgment or renewed judgment after a default

was entered. (See Fid. Creditor Serv. v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 203 [procedures for setting aside default judgments do not necessarily qualify as “defenses to an action on a judgment,” and only the latter support an order vacating a renewed judgment].) Nor does Robinson cite legal authority establishing that EDD was required to provide actual notice in order to trigger the court’s jurisdiction. Due process required EDD to notify Robinson of the overpayment proceedings by means reasonably likely to reach him. (See Evans v. Department of Motor Vehicles (App. 3 Dist. 1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 958, 967, 971.) Furthermore, the applicable statutory provisions in the Unemployment Insurance Code authorized EDD to serve notice by mail, which it did. (See Un. Ins. Code §§ 1376, 1377; see also Am. Tanaka Decl., ¶¶ 5 -14.) None of the notices were returned undelivered, (Am. Tanaka Decl., ¶ 15), and EDD had no reason to believe its notices were not reaching Robinson. In fact, Robinson telephoned the Benefit Overpayment Collection section of EDD shortly after the first overpayment notice was mailed, (id., ¶ 16), and he did not mention any change of service address.

The court finds that Robinson received actual notice of at least the first overpayment notice mailed on 7/02/07. But even if a different finding were made, the court would not grant the motion for lack of jurisdiction. EDD complied with due process requirements and followed statutory notice procedures. As a result, both EDD and the court possessed the requisite jurisdiction, and the judgment and renewed judgment were not entered in error.

Finally, the court rejects Robinson’s argument that EDD should have conducted a search of California prison records to ensure that he was not an inmate at the time it mailed the overpayment notices to his service address then-on file. Robinson does not cite any legal authority imposing such a requirement. Nor is there evidence EDD had reason to believe either that Robinson was incarcerated during the relevant period or that he was not receiving the overpayment notices.

Disposition

The motion is denied.

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