Page 1
Notation of Judgment in Computer System Does Not Constitute an ‘Entry’—C.A.
In Counties Where ‘Judgment Books’ Are Not Maintained,
Opinion Says, the Judgment Is a File-Stamped Document
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal determined in an opinion filed Wednesday that in counties where clerks no longer scribble notations in “judgment books,” the inputting of a recitation of a final decision in the court’s computer system does not constitute the entry of a judgment so as to cut off the judge’s power to grant reconsideration.
Justice Martin N. Buchanan of the Fourth District’s Div. One authored the decision.
The point at which judgment was entered was of significance in the case because if the clerk’s inputting on Jan. 8, 2021 of a judgment for the defendants had effect, the San Diego Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to grant reconsideration on July 16, 2021, and the appeal from the subsequent file-stamped judgment—still for the defendants—would have been untimely.
Judge Kenneth J. Medel reconsidered his granting of summary judgment in light of exhibits that had earlier been rejected, but found that the exhibits merely bolstered his original decision. Plaintiff Raquel Olson filed a notice of appeal on July 27, 2021.
Letter From Court
On Aug. 9, the Court of Appeal sent a letter to Olson’s lawyer saying:
“Appellant’s notice of appeal and civil case information statement states appellant is appealing from a judgment after an order granting a summary judgment motion, but the only document attached to the civil case information statement is a copy of the order granting the summary judgment motion. An order granting summary judgment is not an appealable order….The appeal must be taken from a judgment entered on the basis of the summary judgment order….
“Accordingly, the court requests that appellant obtain a final judgment and submit a copy to this court within 20 days of the date of this letter. The court will construe the notice of appeal as being from the final judgment.”
On Aug. 23, 2021, Medel signed and the clerk filed a final judgment. The Court of Appeal last Aug. 9 requested, and subsequently received, supplemental briefing on the timeliness of the appeal.
Hard-Copy Judgment
“We now conclude that the clerk’s notation alone was not a valid judgment in the absence of a corresponding file-stamped document,” Buchanan declared.
He noted that in prior times, a clerk would enter a judgment in a “judgment book.” However, in 1974, the jurist pointed out, the Legislature enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 668.5 providing that in counties where a judgment is entered “into the court’s electronic data-processing system, prior to placement of the judgment in the file of actions, the clerk shall not be required to enter judgments in a judgment book, and the date of filing the judgment with the clerk shall constitute the date of its entry.”
San Diego County (like Los Angeles ) “no longer uses a judgment book,” Buchanan pointed out. He said:
“Under Code of Civil Procedure section 668.5, the clerk’s mere recording of judgment in the register of actions on January 8, 2021 did not constitute entry of judgment in the absence of a corresponding file-stamped judgment. By its terms, the statute states that ‘the date of filing the judgment with the clerk shall constitute the date of its entry.’ (…italics added.)”
He set forth:
“Because there was no judgment entered on the original summary judgment order in January 2021, the trial court retained jurisdiction to reconsider the order….After reconsidering and reaching the same result, the court entered a proper final judgment on August 23, 2021. Although Olson filed her notice of appeal prematurely before entry of the August 23, 2021 judgment, we stated in our notice of August 9, 2021 that we would construe her notice of appeal as being from the later-filed judgment….Accordingly, the appeal was timely filed….”
The opinion affirms the judgment in favor of Dr. Frank Coufal and his professional corporation, La Jolla Neurological Associates. Olson sued them under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act based on conduct of a third-party bill collection agency.
The defendants do not come under that act because they are not in the business of bill collecting, Buchanan said. WRS, the bill-collecting agency, acted as an independent contractor, not an agent, he wrote.
The case is Olson v. La Jolla Neurological Associates, 2022 S.O.S. 5794.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company