Dakota Payphone, LLC v. Alcaraz
192 Cal. App. 4th 493
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Dakota Payphone, LLC sued Hugo Alcaraz and others on breach, fraud, conversion, accounting, constructive trust, and injunctive claims arising from 330 pay phone leaseback agreements.
- Dakota alleged Alcaraz personally guaranteed 330 agreements and that $461,044 was unpaid in January 2006, plus broader fraudulent conduct and mismanagement involving multi-party schemes resulting in about $45 million in damages.
- The trial court entered a September 4, 2008 default judgment for $45,000,000, with $14,968,500 attributed to Alcaraz’s alleged fraud.
- Alcaraz timely moved for a new trial within 15 days of notice, asserting excessive damages and procedural deficiencies, including lack of damages statement in the operative complaint.
- Dakota opposed, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide the motion for a new trial; a December 29, 2008 order purported to grant the motion in part and to limit fraud damages to amounts pleaded in the operative complaint.
- An amended judgment was entered January 14, 2009, reducing fraud damages to $10,863,000; Alcaraz filed a notice of appeal from that amended judgment, and Dakota cross-appealed challenging the trial court’s December 12/29, 2008 order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the motion for a new trial timely ruled on or denied by operation of law within 60 days? | Dakota contends the motion was denied by operation of law on Nov. 7, 2008. | Alcaraz argues the court retained jurisdiction to rule due to continuances and cross-claims. | The trial court had no jurisdiction to grant the motion beyond 60 days; the order was void. |
| Did the December 29, 2008 order constitute a proper modification of a partially void judgment? | Dakota asserts the court exceeded limits by granting an unwarranted modification. | Alcaraz contends the court could modify the void portion to conform to the complaint. | Yes; the order is a valid modification of a partially void judgment. |
| Is Alcaraz’s appeal from the January 14, 2009 amended judgment timely? | Dakota argues the amended judgment altered the judgment and should be timely appealed. | Alcaraz argues the amended judgment is the final judgment to appeal from. | Alcaraz’s appeal from the amended judgment is untimely and dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Becker v. S.P.V. Construction Co., 27 Cal.3d 489 (Cal. 1980) (void portion modification to save valid portion of judgment; judicial economy and justice)
- Ostling v. Loring, 27 Cal.App.4th 1731 (Cal. App. 1994) (void judgment may be modified to conform to complaint; severable void portion)
- Balaam v. Perazzo, 211 Cal.3d 375 (Cal. 1931) (trial court may strike void portions from judgment; void judgment may be partially sustained)
- Spencer v. Troutt, 133 Cal. 605 (Cal. 1901) (nunc pro tunc amendments; affects rights to appeal)
- George v. Bekins Van & Storage Co., 83 Cal.App.2d 478 (Cal. App. 1948) (clerical vs judicial error; impact on finality and appeal rights)
- Torres v. City of San Diego, 154 Cal.App.4th 214 (Cal. App. 2007) (substantial modification concept; costs/fees not a substantial modification to final judgment)
- Stone v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 77 Cal.App.4th 736 (Cal. App. 1999) (substantial modification defined by material effect on rights)
- Fischer v. First International Bank, 109 Cal.App.4th 1433 (Cal. App. 2003) (60-day jurisdictional deadline for ruling on new trial motion)