Stop C-19, LLC v. Tooling Express, Inc., et al.; AOK Tooling Limited v. Stop C-19, LLC

Summary

The California Court of Appeal addresses whether a trial court validly vacated a judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 663 without simultaneously ordering entry of a new and different judgment. The court holds that the trial court’s order was void because it failed to enter a new judgment within the 75-day period prescribed by section 663a, subdivision (b), and that a later nunc pro tunc order could not cure the defect. The court also affirms the trial court’s rulings against Stop C-19 on its misrepresentation, trafficking, and conversion claims.

Holdings

1. A trial court granting a section 663 motion must contemporaneously enter or direct entry of a new or amended judgment, and both the order vacating the original judgment and the new judgment must occur within section 663a's 75-day jurisdictional period. An order vacating the original judgment without directing entry of a new judgment is void.
2. A nunc pro tunc order could not cure the trial court's failure to timely direct entry of a new judgment because nunc pro tunc relief is limited to correcting clerical errors and cannot make an order now for then or extend section 663a's jurisdictional time limit.
3. The evidence did not compel a finding that AOK made an actionable intentional or negligent misrepresentation concerning NIOSH approval or that Stop justifiably relied on such a misrepresentation.
4. Stop forfeited appellate review of its substantial-evidence challenge because its opening brief failed to fairly summarize material evidence, including evidence concerning the parties' special agreement and whether title to the masks had passed to Stop.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Code of Civil Procedure sections 663 and 663a require a trial court granting a motion to vacate a judgment to contemporaneously direct entry of a new and different judgment within the applicable 75-day period.
2. Whether the trial court could use a nunc pro tunc order to make a later-entered judgment timely under section 663a.
3. Whether the evidence compelled judgment for Stop on its intentional and negligent misrepresentation claims against AOK.
4. Whether Stop preserved its substantial-evidence challenge to the trial court's rejection of its stolen-goods and conversion claims against the Tooling defendants.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded