Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 09/20/2021 TIME: 07:42:00 AM DEPT: 54
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Christopher Krueger
CLERK: G. Toda
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT:
CASE NO: 34-2010-00092428-CU-EN-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 11/29/2010
CASE TITLE: Galipeau Associates Inc, a Delaware corporation vs. Scott
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited
EVENT TYPE: Motion - Other - Civil Law and Motion
APPEARANCES
Nature of Proceeding: Ruling on Submitted Matter-(Motion Confirming Defendant Mynarcik
Waived Right to Challenge Renewed Judgment)-Taken Under Submission on 8/18/21
TENTATIVE RULING
Judgment creditors' assignee WV 23 Jumpstart LLC's ("Jumpstart") "Motion for Order Confirming Tiger
W. Mynarcik Waived his Right to Challenge the Renewed Judgment or, in the alternative, for a Nunc Pro
Tunc Order Amending the Renewed Judgment" is ruled upon as follows.
The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court's tentative ruling system, as required by Local
Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise him/her of Local Rule
1.06 and the Court's tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving
counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to
appear at the hearing by Zoom or by telephone.
The notice of motion does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure §1010 or CRC Rule 3.1110(a).
Factual Background
The original judgment creditors (i.e., Jumpstart's predecessors-in-interest) filed suit in Nevada in 2009,
seeking a deficiency judgment against Pahrump 161 LLC and several individuals including but not
limited to Messrs. Mynarcik, Scott and Metzka. In 2010 a judgment of nearly $1.35 Million was entered
against the defendants but it was later amended to over $1.58 Million. Shortly thereafter Pahrump 161
LLC filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in Nevada. In late 2010 the original judgment creditors
sought to have the amended Nevada judgment domesticated here in California and despite being
personally served with the 2010 application to domesticate the amended Nevada judgment, Mr.
Mynarcik did not challenge this 2010 domestication process in California. In early 2013 Mr. Scott filed a
petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in California and over $462,000 was eventually distributed from the
bankruptcy estate to the judgment creditors. From 2013 through 2016 another judgment debtor, Mr.
Metkza, paid nearly $40,000 to the judgment creditors.
DATE: 09/20/2021 MINUTE ORDER Page 1
DEPT: 54 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Galipeau Associates Inc, a Delaware CASE NO: 34-2010-00092428-CU-EN-GDS
corporation vs. Scott
Well after the Nevada judgment became unenforceable in Nevada in 2016, the California judgment was
assigned by the original judgment creditors to Jumpstart in May 2020 and in July 2020 Jumpstart then
sought to renew the California judgment which, after taking into account past collections, accrued
interest, etc., Jumpstart listed as being in excess of $2.61 Million. Notice of this renewal of the California
judgment was in October 2020 served by mail on Mr. Mynarcik at his residence in Nevada but he made
at that time no attempt to challenge the renewed California judgment.
In December 2020 Jumpstart then sought to domesticate the renewed California judgment in Nevada
but in response, Mr. Mynarcik filed with the Nevada Court in January 2021 a "motion to quash, vacate,
and declare purported registration of an old and expired transpired Nevada judgment null and void,"
arguing that the Nevada Judgment had already expired and California never had personal jurisdiction
over him (a Nevada resident) to enter either the original 2010 or the renewed 2020 California judgment.
It appears the Nevada Court has not yet ruled on Mr. Mynarcik's motion to quash/vacate but has instead
directed the parties "to seek guidance from the appropriate California Court as to the validity of the
Renewed [California] Judgment." More specifically, the Nevada Court has stated in pertinent part:
The registration of the renewed California Judgment in Nevada will then be deemed valid and
enforceable in Nevada if a California court concludes or declares either one of the following:
A. Mynarcik waived his right, under California law, to challenge the renewed California Judgment; or
B. An amendment to the renewed California Judgment would relate back to the California Judgment's
renewal date.
(Nevada Court Order filed 4/12/2021, p.7:19-24.)
Moving Papers. Jumpstart contends that Mr. Mynarcik "waived his right to vacate the California
judgment" because he, despite being personally served with the 2010 application to domesticate the
amended Nevada judgment in California, failed to file a motion to vacate the entry of the sister-state
judgment within 30 days as required by Code of Civil Procedure §1710.40(b). Jumpstart further asserts
that Mr. Mynarcik "waived his right to vacate [the] renewed [California] judgment" because he, despite
being served with the 2020 application to renew the California judgment by mail at his residence in
Nevada, failed to file a motion to vacate the renewal of California judgment within 30 days as required by
Code of Civil Procedure §683.170.
The moving papers additionally argue that this Court has "inherent equitable powers to amend the
renewed [California] judgment nunc pro tunc" under Code of Civil Procedure §187. While Jumpstart
disagrees with the Nevada Court's finding that the amount of the renewed California judgment is
incorrect due to past garnishment of Mr. Mynarcik's earnings given the lack of admissible evidence
regarding this garnishment including the amount, Jumpstart maintains that "it would be unjust and unfair
for this Court to invalidate the Renewed Judgment solely based on Mynarcik's spurious and unsupported
claim that he is entitled to a credit of $6,000 [for the alleged garnishment], particularly because he never
sought to challenge the Renewed Judgment here in California with regard to the computation of the
balance due or any other grounds." (Mov. Memo. P&A, p.11:4-7.) Thus, if the Court is unwilling to issue
an order finding that Mr. Mynarcik waived his right to challenge the amount of the renewed California
judgment, the Court should pursuant to its inherent equitable powers amend nunc pro tunc the amount
from $2,611,083 to $2,605,083 in order to account for the $6,000 garnishment "in order to address the
concerns of the Nevada Court...," thereby "preserving [Jumpstart's] rightful judgment" while providing Mr.
Mynarcik with "a dimminimus [sic] credit". (Id., at p.11:16-p.12:5.)
Opposition. Mr. Mynarcik opposes the present motion on numerous grounds but he adds that he has
also filed with this Court a "motion to quash, dismiss and declare null and void" the California judgment
"because this Court does not have personal jurisdiction over [him], making the California Judgment a
nullity as to him." (Oppos., p.1:20-24.) According to the opposition, Jumpstart is "misusing California law
to collect on a stale judgment against Mr. Mynarcik who has no relevant contact with California"
DATE: 09/20/2021 MINUTE ORDER Page 2
DEPT: 54 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Galipeau Associates Inc, a Delaware CASE NO: 34-2010-00092428-CU-EN-GDS
corporation vs. Scott
inasmuch as "he was essentially a stranger to the California Judgment for more than a decade" and
Jumpstart's service of its 2020 application to renew the California judgment by mail to Mr. Mynarcik's
residence in Nevada omitted service on his attorneys of record in the original Nevada action. (Oppos.,
p.5:1-p.6:5.) Moreover, Jumpstart is attempting to use the California judgment which was "domesticated
as a purely ministerial act" as an original judgment to revive the original, long-since expired Nevada
judgment as well as to obtain another sister state judgment in New Mexico but the California judgment
cannot be exported to Nevada or New Mexico since the California judgment is based solely on "a
ministerial act" rather than a "judicial one," meaning that it is not entitled to full faith and credit of
California's sister states. (Oppos., p.6:4-14.) The opposition insists Jumpstart bought a California
judgment which might have been enforceable against Mr. Mynarcik in California if he had contacts with
or assets in California but Jumpstart is using the California judgment "to trick the Courts of New Mexico
and Nevada into treating the ministerial sister state judgment as a judicial instrument entitled to the full
faith and credit of an original California judgment." (Oppos., p.7:7-14.)
Mr. Mynarcik next contends that he is a long time resident of Nevada, has never resided in California or
engaged in business here, and has never purposefully sought to derive any benefit in this state, thereby
precluding the "minimum contacts" essential to personal jurisdiction in California. (Oppos., p.7:16-17;
p.8:25-p.9:22.) The only reason the original Nevada judgment made its way to California was because
Mr. Scott, not Mr. Mynarcik, had assets here (which were successfully pursued) but the California
judgment was from its inception "a nullity as to Mr. Mynarcik" because he had no contacts with California
and was never subject to personal jurisdiction here. (Oppos., p.9:23-p.10:7.)
The opposition adds that the renewed California judgment is invalid because it is premised on an
expired Nevada judgment and therefore it may be vacated pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
§1710.40. (Oppos., p.10:9-22.) More specifically, the Nevada judgment expired pursuant to Nevada law
in 2016, several years before Jumpstart bought the judgment and sought to renew it in California in
2020, and under Nevada law the improperly renewed California judgment is treated as void, one of the
grounds which may be raised pursuant to §1710.40. (Oppos., p.11:6-16.) Another separate and
independent basis to vacate the renewed California judgment under this statute is the inaccurate
amount. (Oppos., p.11:18-p.12:5.)
Mr. Mynarcik also attacks the "amended judgment" (presumably referring to the renewed California
judgment) on the ground it was "improperly served" inasmuch as the Jumpstart failed to serve its 2020
application to renew the California judgment on Mr. Mynarcik's attorneys of record in the original Nevada
action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §415.40 and CRC Rule 1.21, and therefore, not only has Mr.
Mynarcik's time to challenge the renewed California judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
§1710.40 not yet commenced but Nevada law actually specifies that Jumpstart's defective service
renders the California judgment unenforceable. (Oppos., p.12:15-p.13:25.) Finally, the opposition
argues that an order granting the present motion would "mislead the Courts of Nevada and New Mexico"
into believing the renewed California judgment is valid and enforceable even though in California, only
those judgments entered by judicial action, as distinguished from ministerial acts, are entitled to full faith
and credit in sister states. (Oppos., p.14:1-p.16:2.)
Objections to Evidence
Jumpstart's objections to evidence are overruled except as to the following paragraphs:
Mynarcik Decl.: Paragraph Nos. 4, 12 and 14.
Rhoads Decl.: Paragraph Nos. 3, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
Analysis
At the outset the Court notes that the moving papers are devoid of any California legal authority which
DATE: 09/20/2021 MINUTE ORDER Page 3
DEPT: 54 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Galipeau Associates Inc, a Delaware CASE NO: 34-2010-00092428-CU-EN-GDS
corporation vs. Scott
compels or even authorizes this Court to make a prospective determination whether or not a judgment
debtor such as Mr. Mynarcik "waived the right" to challenge a judgment renewed in California. The mere
fact that the Nevada Court desires such a ruling does not, without more, compel or otherwise authorize
this Court to make such a determination in response to the present motion. The Court construes
Jumpstart's failure to proffer any California legal authority for such a determination as a concession that
no such authority exists and thus, this Court declines Jumpstart's invitation to make such a
determination.
However, as discussed more fully in the tentative ruling on Mr. Mynarcik's concurrent motion to
quash/dismiss and to vacate the judgment domesticated in this state in November 2010 and purportedly
renewed by Jumpstart in July 2020 on the ground that California lacks of personal jurisdiction over Mr.
Mynarcik, the decision of Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Renda (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 14 explains not only
that "[j]udgments or orders by a court that lacks jurisdiction in this fundamental sense are void" but also
that "a judgment rendered in the absence of fundamental jurisdiction is simply a nullity." (Airlines
Reporting, at 20 (citations omitted) (underline added for emphasis).) Moreover, the Airlines Reporting
court went on to clarify that Code of Civil Procedure §1710.40(b)'s 30-day limitation to challenge to sister
state judgments "does not apply to challenges based on lack of personal jurisdiction" because a
defendant may challenge lack of fundamental jurisdiction at any time. (Id.) Based on this precedent, this
Court is on the present record unable to conclude as a matter of law that Mr. Mynarcik has "waived the
right" to challenge either the 2010 entry of the California judgment or the 2020 renewal of same.
This Court also declines to issue an order amending nunc pro tunc the 2020 renewed judgment since
the Court has issued a tentative ruling vacating the 2010 judgment domesticated in California and
renewed in 2020 to the extent it purports to be a judgment against Mr. Mynarcik since he has no
demonstrable "minimum contacts" with the State of California and is therefore beyond the personal
jurisdiction of this Court.
Disposition
For the reasons explained above, Jumpstart's present motion shall be and hereby is DENIED in its
entirety.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc.
§1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)
COURT RULING
The matter was argued and submitted. The matter was taken under submission.
SUBMITTED MATTER RULING
After hearing oral argument the Court affirmed its tentative ruling with the following modification: The
declaration of Kathleen Rhodes, filed on August 31, 2021, was an unauthorized filing and is STRICKEN
from the record.
DATE: 09/20/2021 MINUTE ORDER Page 4
DEPT: 54 Calendar No.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE: 09/20/2021 TIME: 07:42:00 AM DEPT: 54 JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Christopher Krueger CLERK: G. Toda REPORTER/ERM: BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: CASE NO: 34-2010-00092428-CU-EN-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 11/29/2010 CASE TITLE: Galipeau Associates Inc, a Delaware corporation vs. Scott CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited EVENT TYPE: Motion - Other - Civil Law and Motion APPEARANCES Nature of Proceeding: Ruling on Submitted Matter-(Motion Confirming Defendant Mynarcik Waived Right to Challenge Renewed Judgment)-Taken Under Submission on 8/18/21 TENTATIVE RULING Judgment creditors' assignee WV 23 Jumpstart LLC's ("Jumpstart") "Motion for Order Confirming Tiger W. Mynarcik Waived his Right to Challenge the Renewed Judgment or, in the alternative, for a Nunc Pro Tunc Order Amending the Renewed Judgment" is ruled upon as follows. The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court's tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise him/her of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court's tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or by telephone. The notice of motion does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure §1010 or CRC Rule 3.1110(a). Factual Background The original judgment creditors (i.e., Jumpstart's predecessors-in-interest) filed suit in Nevada in 2009, seeking a deficiency judgment against Pahrump 161 LLC and several individuals including but not limited to Messrs. Mynarcik, Scott and Metzka. In 2010 a judgment of nearly $1.35 Million was entered against the defendants but it was later amended to over $1.58 Million. Shortly thereafter Pahrump 161 LLC filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in Nevada. In late 2010 the original judgment creditors sought to have the amended Nevada judgment domesticated here in California and despite being personally served with the 2010 application to domesticate the amended Nevada judgment, Mr. Mynarcik did not challenge this 2010 domestication process in California. In early 2013 Mr. Scott filed a petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in California and over $462,000 was eventually distributed from the bankruptcy estate to the judgment creditors. From 2013 through 2016 another judgment debtor, Mr. Metkza, paid nearly $40,000 to the judgment creditors. DATE: 09/20/2021 MINUTE ORDER Page 1 DEPT: 54 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Galipeau Associates Inc, a Delaware CASE NO: 34-2010-00092428-CU-EN-GDS corporation vs. Scott Well after the Nevada judgment became unenforceable in Nevada in 2016, the California judgment was assigned by the original judgment creditors to Jumpstart in May 2020 and in July 2020 Jumpstart then sought to renew the California judgment which, after taking into account past collections, accrued interest, etc., Jumpstart listed as being in excess of $2.61 Million. Notice of this renewal of the California judgment was in October 2020 served by mail on Mr. Mynarcik at his residence in Nevada but he made at that time no attempt to challenge the renewed California judgment. In December 2020 Jumpstart then sought to domesticate the renewed California judgment in Nevada but in response, Mr. Mynarcik filed with the Nevada Court in January 2021 a "motion to quash, vacate, and declare purported registration of an old and expired transpired Nevada judgment null and void," arguing that the Nevada Judgment had already expired and California never had personal jurisdiction over him (a Nevada resident) to enter either the original 2010 or the renewed 2020 California judgment. It appears the Nevada Court has not yet ruled on Mr. Mynarcik's motion to quash/vacate but has instead directed the parties "to seek guidance from the appropriate California Court as to the validity of the Renewed [California] Judgment." More specifically, the Nevada Court has stated in pertinent part: The registration of the renewed California Judgment in Nevada will then be deemed valid and enforceable in Nevada if a California court concludes or declares either one of the following: A. Mynarcik waived his right, under California law, to challenge the renewed California Judgment; or B. An amendment to the renewed California Judgment would relate back to the California Judgment's renewal date. (Nevada Court Order filed 4/12/2021, p.7:19-24.) Moving Papers. Jumpstart contends that Mr. Mynarcik "waived his right to vacate the California judgment" because he, despite being personally served with the 2010 application to domesticate the amended Nevada judgment in California, failed to file a motion to vacate the entry of the sister-state judgment within 30 days as required by Code of Civil Procedure §1710.40(b). Jumpstart further asserts that Mr. Mynarcik "waived his right to vacate [the] renewed [California] judgment" because he, despite being served with the 2020 application to renew the California judgment by mail at his residence in Nevada, failed to file a motion to vacate the renewal of California judgment within 30 days as required by Code of Civil Procedure §683.170. The moving papers additionally argue that this Court has "inherent equitable powers to amend the renewed [California] judgment nunc pro tunc" under Code of Civil Procedure §187. While Jumpstart disagrees with the Nevada Court's finding that the amount of the renewed California judgment is incorrect due to past garnishment of Mr. Mynarcik's earnings given the lack of admissible evidence regarding this garnishment including the amount, Jumpstart maintains that "it would be unjust and unfair for this Court to invalidate the Renewed Judgment solely based on Mynarcik's spurious and unsupported claim that he is entitled to a credit of $6,000 [for the alleged garnishment], particularly because he never sought to challenge the Renewed Judgment here in California with regard to the computation of the balance due or any other grounds." (Mov. Memo. P&A, p.11:4-7.) Thus, if the Court is unwilling to issue an order finding that Mr. Mynarcik waived his right to challenge the amount of the renewed California judgment, the Court should pursuant to its inherent equitable powers amend nunc pro tunc the amount from $2,611,083 to $2,605,083 in order to account for the $6,000 garnishment "in order to address the concerns of the Nevada Court...," thereby "preserving [Jumpstart's] rightful judgment" while providing Mr. Mynarcik with "a dimminimus [sic] credit". (Id., at p.11:16-p.12:5.) Opposition. Mr. Mynarcik opposes the present motion on numerous grounds but he adds that he has also filed with this Court a "motion to quash, dismiss and declare null and void" the California judgment "because this Court does not have personal jurisdiction over [him], making the California Judgment a nullity as to him." (Oppos., p.1:20-24.) According to the opposition, Jumpstart is "misusing California law to collect on a stale judgment against Mr. Mynarcik who has no relevant contact with California" DATE: 09/20/2021 MINUTE ORDER Page 2 DEPT: 54 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Galipeau Associates Inc, a Delaware CASE NO: 34-2010-00092428-CU-EN-GDS corporation vs. Scott inasmuch as "he was essentially a stranger to the California Judgment for more than a decade" and Jumpstart's service of its 2020 application to renew the California judgment by mail to Mr. Mynarcik's residence in Nevada omitted service on his attorneys of record in the original Nevada action. (Oppos., p.5:1-p.6:5.) Moreover, Jumpstart is attempting to use the California judgment which was "domesticated as a purely ministerial act" as an original judgment to revive the original, long-since expired Nevada judgment as well as to obtain another sister state judgment in New Mexico but the California judgment cannot be exported to Nevada or New Mexico since the California judgment is based solely on "a ministerial act" rather than a "judicial one," meaning that it is not entitled to full faith and credit of California's sister states. (Oppos., p.6:4-14.) The opposition insists Jumpstart bought a California judgment which might have been enforceable against Mr. Mynarcik in California if he had contacts with or assets in California but Jumpstart is using the California judgment "to trick the Courts of New Mexico and Nevada into treating the ministerial sister state judgment as a judicial instrument entitled to the full faith and credit of an original California judgment." (Oppos., p.7:7-14.) Mr. Mynarcik next contends that he is a long time resident of Nevada, has never resided in California or engaged in business here, and has never purposefully sought to derive any benefit in this state, thereby precluding the "minimum contacts" essential to personal jurisdiction in California. (Oppos., p.7:16-17; p.8:25-p.9:22.) The only reason the original Nevada judgment made its way to California was because Mr. Scott, not Mr. Mynarcik, had assets here (which were successfully pursued) but the California judgment was from its inception "a nullity as to Mr. Mynarcik" because he had no contacts with California and was never subject to personal jurisdiction here. (Oppos., p.9:23-p.10:7.) The opposition adds that the renewed California judgment is invalid because it is premised on an expired Nevada judgment and therefore it may be vacated pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1710.40. (Oppos., p.10:9-22.) More specifically, the Nevada judgment expired pursuant to Nevada law in 2016, several years before Jumpstart bought the judgment and sought to renew it in California in 2020, and under Nevada law the improperly renewed California judgment is treated as void, one of the grounds which may be raised pursuant to §1710.40. (Oppos., p.11:6-16.) Another separate and independent basis to vacate the renewed California judgment under this statute is the inaccurate amount. (Oppos., p.11:18-p.12:5.) Mr. Mynarcik also attacks the "amended judgment" (presumably referring to the renewed California judgment) on the ground it was "improperly served" inasmuch as the Jumpstart failed to serve its 2020 application to renew the California judgment on Mr. Mynarcik's attorneys of record in the original Nevada action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §415.40 and CRC Rule 1.21, and therefore, not only has Mr. Mynarcik's time to challenge the renewed California judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1710.40 not yet commenced but Nevada law actually specifies that Jumpstart's defective service renders the California judgment unenforceable. (Oppos., p.12:15-p.13:25.) Finally, the opposition argues that an order granting the present motion would "mislead the Courts of Nevada and New Mexico" into believing the renewed California judgment is valid and enforceable even though in California, only those judgments entered by judicial action, as distinguished from ministerial acts, are entitled to full faith and credit in sister states. (Oppos., p.14:1-p.16:2.) Objections to Evidence Jumpstart's objections to evidence are overruled except as to the following paragraphs: Mynarcik Decl.: Paragraph Nos. 4, 12 and 14. Rhoads Decl.: Paragraph Nos. 3, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Analysis At the outset the Court notes that the moving papers are devoid of any California legal authority which DATE: 09/20/2021 MINUTE ORDER Page 3 DEPT: 54 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Galipeau Associates Inc, a Delaware CASE NO: 34-2010-00092428-CU-EN-GDS corporation vs. Scott compels or even authorizes this Court to make a prospective determination whether or not a judgment debtor such as Mr. Mynarcik "waived the right" to challenge a judgment renewed in California. The mere fact that the Nevada Court desires such a ruling does not, without more, compel or otherwise authorize this Court to make such a determination in response to the present motion. The Court construes Jumpstart's failure to proffer any California legal authority for such a determination as a concession that no such authority exists and thus, this Court declines Jumpstart's invitation to make such a determination. However, as discussed more fully in the tentative ruling on Mr. Mynarcik's concurrent motion to quash/dismiss and to vacate the judgment domesticated in this state in November 2010 and purportedly renewed by Jumpstart in July 2020 on the ground that California lacks of personal jurisdiction over Mr. Mynarcik, the decision of Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Renda (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 14 explains not only that "[j]udgments or orders by a court that lacks jurisdiction in this fundamental sense are void" but also that "a judgment rendered in the absence of fundamental jurisdiction is simply a nullity." (Airlines Reporting, at 20 (citations omitted) (underline added for emphasis).) Moreover, the Airlines Reporting court went on to clarify that Code of Civil Procedure §1710.40(b)'s 30-day limitation to challenge to sister state judgments "does not apply to challenges based on lack of personal jurisdiction" because a defendant may challenge lack of fundamental jurisdiction at any time. (Id.) Based on this precedent, this Court is on the present record unable to conclude as a matter of law that Mr. Mynarcik has "waived the right" to challenge either the 2010 entry of the California judgment or the 2020 renewal of same. This Court also declines to issue an order amending nunc pro tunc the 2020 renewed judgment since the Court has issued a tentative ruling vacating the 2010 judgment domesticated in California and renewed in 2020 to the extent it purports to be a judgment against Mr. Mynarcik since he has no demonstrable "minimum contacts" with the State of California and is therefore beyond the personal jurisdiction of this Court. Disposition For the reasons explained above, Jumpstart's present motion shall be and hereby is DENIED in its entirety. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.) COURT RULING The matter was argued and submitted. The matter was taken under submission. SUBMITTED MATTER RULING After hearing oral argument the Court affirmed its tentative ruling with the following modification: The declaration of Kathleen Rhodes, filed on August 31, 2021, was an unauthorized filing and is STRICKEN from the record. DATE: 09/20/2021 MINUTE ORDER Page 4 DEPT: 54 Calendar No.