The full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 1, requires a state to enforce a judgment rendered in another state, but only where all parties were provided reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard. (Washoe Development Company v. Guaranty Federal Bank (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1521.) If a sister-state judgment was obtained in violation of constitutional protections, including due process, full faith and credit must be denied. (State of Arizona ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Yuen (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 169, 179.)
“The full faith and credit provision of the Constitution is designed to provide a method of proving the record of a judicial proceeding in one state for the express purpose of carrying out the result of that proceeding in other states.” (In re Laura F. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 583, 592-593.) This provision requires that the judgment of another state “be given as much effect in the state of the forum as in the state of its rendition.” (In re Mary G. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 184, 201; Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 1710.10, et seq.; Martin v. Martin (1970) 2 Cal.3d 752, 762 fn.13.)
“As long as the sister state court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, a sister state judgment is entitled to full faith and credit ‘even as to matters of law or fact erroneously decided.’” (Bank of America v. Jennett (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 104, 118.)
However, a judgment entered based on a sister state judgment “may be vacated on any ground which would be a defense to an action in this state on the sister state judgment.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1710.40(a).) This includes failure to acquire jurisdiction through proper service in the sister state. (Fidelity Creditor Service v. Browne (2001 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 202.)
Where service in the sister state was proper, moving party must “plead and prove a viable defense to an action in this state on the sister state judgment.” (Conseco Marketing LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 841.) Common defenses to enforcement of a sister state judgment include the following:
(Washoe Development Co. v. Guaranty Federal Bank (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1522.)
“The party moving under section 1710.40 to set aside the sister state judgment has ‘the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence why it was entitled to relief.’” (Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 841.)
When an application for enforcement of a sister-state judgment is filed, a judgment debtor has thirty days from service in which to challenge the sister-state judgment. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1710.40(b).) Challenges to the judgment on the grounds that there was no subject matter or personal jurisdiction in the underlying action may, however, be made at any time. (Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Renda (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 14, 19-20.) A challenge to jurisdiction in California does not waive the jurisdictional defense to the underlying action. (Id. at 21-22.)
State Water Resources Control Bd. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1471 [internal citations and footnote omitted].) “[A]n irreparable injury is one for which either (1) its pecuniary value is not susceptible to monetary valuation, or (2) the item is so unique its loss deprives the possessor of intrinsic values not replaceable by money or in kind.” (Jessen v. Keystone Savings & Loan Assn. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 454, 457.)
Sep 29, 2030
Orange County, CA
s Motion for Summary Adjudication 4)Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Turner Construction Company's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication Against Plaintiffs 1. Motion by Saddleback Corp. dba Saddleback Waterproof for Summary Judgment or Adjudication as to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint Defendant Saddleback’s motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication of Issues 5 and 6 (statute of limitations) is DENIED.
Apr 25, 2026
Orange County, CA
Where the judgment commands that the order or decision be set aside, it may order the reconsideration of the case in light of the court’s opinion and judgment and may order respondent to take such further action as is specially enjoined upon it by law, but the judgment shall not limit or control in any way the discretion legally vested in the respondent. (Emphasis added.) Draft Proposed Judgment.
Jun 20, 2021
Orange County, CA
Peel do not address whether the applicants are: (1) regularly employed in the State of California or (2) regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. CRC, Rule 9.40(a)(2) and (3). The hearings on the applications are continued to 7/19/19 to allow the applicants to provide supplemental information regarding the foregoing factors. The supplemental information should be submitted by 7/12/19. No appearance is required at the hearing set for 6/21/19.
Jun 20, 2021
Orange County, CA
Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) N/A Summary of the case.
Oct 07, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
(KC070509) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff Jose Aguilera’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff Jose Aguilera’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
Sep 24, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) Yes Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)
Sep 23, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
Lopez (19PSCV00965) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff Upgrade Securitization Trust I’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff Upgrade Securitization Trust I’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
Aug 17, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment is set for August 14, 2020. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
Aug 14, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
., et al. (20PSCV00215) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff YesLender, LLC’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling Plaintiff YesLender, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED.
Aug 12, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
“If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.) “When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Id. at 467; CCP § 437c(c).)
Aug 06, 2020
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
A Case Management Conference and Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for August 6, 2020 Discussion Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
Aug 06, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Chen, et al. (19PSCV00800) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff Changliang Dai’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Tentative Ruling The hearing on Plaintiff Changliang Dai’s Application for Default Judgment is CONTINUED to September 2, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. Background Plaintiff Changliang Dai (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff is an investor from China. In or around March 2018, Plaintiff met Thomas Chen (“Chen”).
Jul 31, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
As such, the default judgment is procedurally defective and lacks admissible evidence.
Jul 30, 2020
Collections
Promisory Note
Los Angeles County, CA
On November 15, 2019, the Court denied First American Title Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication against Plaintiffs.
Jul 29, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).) Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).) No Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) Yes Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)
Jul 29, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency(2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037 [“A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment.”]; Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768 [“When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.”].)
Jul 26, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
First Cause of Action: Breach of Written Contract To state a cause of action for breach of contract, Plaintiff must be able to establish “(1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff.” (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.)
Jul 26, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
“To state a claim for slander of title, a plaintiff must allege (1) a publication, (2) which is without privilege or justification, (3) which is false, and (4) which causes direct and immediate pecuniary loss.” (Schep v. Capital One, N.A. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1331, 1336.)
Jul 26, 2020
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Second, Plaintiffs’ allegations of conversion are internally contradictory, as they state that they did not consent to having their products given to noncelebrities, but they gave away their product to Defendant’s acquaintances; there are insufficient facts describing how products were “required to be given away.”
Jul 26, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Again, Plaintiff fails to state what is posted with her license so it is unclear whether the Board is in compliance with its own Policy on Internet Discipline Document Retention. Accordingly, in that Plaintiff fails to set forth a claim upon which relief may be granted, Defendant Board of Registered Nursing’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED, with twenty (20) days leave to amend.
Jul 26, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s statement that the owner’s passing canceled the agreement was not true, but he fails to state why Defendant could not have reasonably believed this statement to be true. (Compl. ¶¶ 54-55.) Plaintiff also fails to state how he relied on this statement in a manner that caused him damage. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently state a claim for negligent misrepresentation.
Jul 26, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Analysis A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer but is made after the time for demurrer has expired. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (f).) Except as provided by statute, the rules governing demurrers apply. (Civic Partners Stockton, LLC v. Youssefi (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1005, 1012.) “Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant.” (Rolfe v. Cal. Transp.
Jul 26, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Finally, Plaintiff must file an amended JUD-100 form that matches the amended request for default judgment as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(6).
Jul 25, 2020
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency(2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037 [“A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment.”]; Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768 [“When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.”].)
Jul 24, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.
