Decision on

Submitted Matter

ILE
1'
MAY 5 2019

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
10
LEGALFORCE RAPC WORLDWIDE, P.C. Case No. 17CV305497
11
(formerly RAJ ABJYANKER P.C.)
12 ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S
Plaintiff, MOTION TO SET ASIDE OR VACATE
13 JUDGMENT
v.
14

15 GENEVA LAI,

16 Defendant.

17 In early February 2019, the Court signed and filed a judgment in this case submitted by

18 plaintiff LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C. The judgment was based on a Code of Civil

19 Procedure section 998 offer (the “998 Offer”) accepted in writing by defendant Geneva Lai on

20 January 11, 2019. Now defendant seeks to set aside or vacate the February judgment. After

21 considering the parties’ briefs, declarations, and argument at the May 14 hearing, the Court took

22 the matter under submission.

23 The Court now rules as follows:

24 1. Defendant did not file her motion too late. She persuasively explains that she did not

25 receive a copy of the February judgment directly from the Court, but rather only received it from

26 plaintiff (at her request) in March 201 9. The Coun will resolve this motion on its merits.

27

28
 2. The Court does not believe the February judgment goes beyond the signed 998 Offer or

misstates the material terms 0f the signed 998 Offer. Defendant argues this judgment implies

factual findings of guilt, but the Court disagrees. Besides, any supposed factual findings of guilt

could be inferred in the same way from the signed 998 Offer, had it been directly entered by the

Court. Overall, there appears to be a sufficient meeting of the minds at the time the 998 Offer
OOOVQUIAWNfl

was accepted.

3. There is no clerical error 0r void judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d).

The February judgment fairly reflects the material terms to which the parties had agreed.

4. “Section 998, subdivision (b)(l) provides that upon receipt 0f an offer and proof of

acceptance, the clerk or the court should perform the ministerial task of entering judgment

according to the parties’ agreement.” (Bias v. Wright (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 81 1, 819.) The

Court agrees that on January 11, the clerk’s office received the signed 998 Offer. But as

discussed above, the Court believes that the February judgment is a “judgment according to the

parties’ agreement,” since it reflects the material terms to which the parties had agreed in the

signed 998 Offer. Section 998, subdivision (b)(l) is not violated by the Court signed a proposed

judgment by a party that fairly reflects the 998 Offer/acceptance, as opposed to crafting its own
judgment based on the 998 Offer/acceptance. Both are “ministerial tasks.”

In any event, the 998 Offer/acceptance is attached to the entered judgment. If defendant
ooflombwwb-‘OOOOVQUIAUJN—‘o

is worried about bad publicity from the judgment, she can trumpet the actual language from the

998 Offer/acceptance.

5. In addition, the Court notes that plaintiff sent the proposed judgment to defendant’s

counsel for approval as to form. (See 3/27/19 R. Abhyanker Dec1., 11 6.) Defendant’s counsel

admitted at oral argument that they (defendant’s attorneys) received this proposed judgment, but

did nothing. If this judgment was egregiously misleading, as defendant now argues, why did

defendant remain silent? Why didn’t it complain to plaintiff, 0r even tell the Court not t0 sign

this judgment? Defendant’s counsel’s response that “the Court was likely to ignore it, so we
didn’t have to do anything” is unpersuasive.
 Even assuming arguendo that this failure to contest the form of the judgment is excusable

neglect under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), the Court sees no need for discretionary

relief. There is nothing material in the February judgment that wasn’t in the signed 998 Offer.‘

The Court sees no harm to defendant from the February judgment (which, again, attaches the

COGNONUI-BUJNH signed 998 Offer), and thus finds no harm in defendant’s counsel’s inaction.

6. For all of these reasons, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion to set aside, vacate, or

correct the February 2019 judgment.

IT IS SO ORDE D.

z /;< m The Honorable Sunil R. Kulkarni

Judge of the Superior Court

WN@M&WNHOCWNO\MAWNHO

NNNNNNNNNHH~—-——H_

'
In addition, defendant’s counsel’s declaration was not an “attorney affidavit of fault,” as Ms.
Riles does not admit fault. Therefore, mandatory relief under section 473(b) is not permitted.
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE
191 NORTH FIRsr STREEr
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113
CIVIL DIVISION
l I E
MAY l 5 2019

Clerk ofth Court

RE: R.Abyhanker P.C. vs. G. Lai
Case Number: 17CV305497

PROOF OF SERVICE
Order Regarding Defendant's Motion to Set Aside or Vacate Judgment was delivered to the parties listed
below the above entitled case as set forth in the sworn declaration below.

If you. a party represented by you. or a witness to be called on behalf of that party need an accommodation under the Amen'can with
please contact the Court Administrator’s office at (408) 882-2700, or use the Court's
Disabilities Act. TDD line (408) 882-2690 or the
VoicefTDD California Relay Service (800) 735-2922.

DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL: declare that served this notice by enclosing a true copy in a sealed envelope. addressed to
| |

each person whose name is shown below. and by depositing the envelope with postage fully prepaid, in the United States Mail at San Jose.
CA on May 15. 2019. CLERK OF THE COURT, by Mark Rosales. Deputy.

cc: Raj Vasant Abhyanker 1580 W

El Camino Real Suite 10 Mountain View CA 94040-2463
Elizabeth Louise Riles 4319 Piedmont Ave 2nd Floor OAKLAND CA 94611

CW-9027 REV 12/08/16 PROOF OF SERVICE