Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA and Insurance Services, Inc.

26 Citing cases

  1. Casey v. Hill

    79 Cal.App.5th 937 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 17 times
    Stating that "entry by the clerk of a judgment based upon the application is mandatory โ€ฆ, constituting a ministerial act of the clerk"

    This was an available defense to recognition of the Missouri judgment. (See, e.g., State of Arizona ex rel. Arizona Dept. of Revenue v. Yuen (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 169, 179, 180, 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 525 [affirming trial court order vacating entry of judgment on an Arizona judgment on due process grounds based on the determination the judgment debtor did not have notice of the proceedings]; Bank of America, supra , 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 115, fn. 8, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 359 [noting that "several California courts that have examined whether a sister state court lacked jurisdiction over the parties or over the subject matter have characterized the issue as an inquiry into whether the judgment was entered in โ€˜excess of jurisdictionโ€™ "]; cf. Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 839, 164 Cal.Rptr.3d 788 ( Conseco ) [holding that although the defendant's challenge to the foreign court's exercise of personal jurisdiction was an unlisted defense, it could nevertheless be asserted under section 1710.40 ].) We note the defenses that may be asserted in a motion to vacate under section 1710.40 are not well defined.

  2. Accel Capital, Inc. v. Namr 2617, LLC

    No. B298158 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2021)

    "The United States Constitution requires that the judgments of sister states be given full faith and credit if the rendering state had fundamental jurisdiction of the matter and all parties were provided reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard." (Capital Trust, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 826; accord, Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 837 (Conseco Marketing); see V.L. v. E.L. (2016) 136 S.Ct. 1017, 1020 ["'A final judgment in one State, if rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgment, qualifies for recognition throughout the land.'"].) The Sister State Money Judgments Act (the Act; ยง 1710.10 et seq.)

  3. Weinstock Family Tr. v. Shaw

    No. H050438 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 22, 2024)

    Appellants' counsel notified this court in writing that at oral argument (scheduled three days later), that he intended to rely on two cases not cited in appellants' opening or reply briefs. The cases identified were Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831 (Conseco Marketing), and Li v. Jin (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 481 (Li). This submission was improper under California Rules of Court, rule 8.254(a).

  4. Macon Bank, Inc. v. Cornblum

    A141698 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2015)

    (Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co. (1980) 448 U.S. 261, 270.) To this end, California permits a judgment creditor to apply for the entry of a California judgment based on a money judgment entered in another state. (Code Civ. Proc., ยงยง 1710.10, 1710.15; see Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 837 (Conseco).) Based on this application, the court clerk enters the requested judgment.

  5. World Botanical Gardens, Inc. v. Wagner

    No. H049234 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 30, 2022)

    ) Thus, a debtor may not challenge a judgment entered under the Act on the grounds of mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect under section 473 (Liquidator, supra, at p. 979), or by seeking relief from default under section 473.5 (Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA &Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 844 (Conseco Marketing)). Appellants did not challenge entry of the California judgment in 2010 within 30 days of service of notice of its entry.

  6. Kinkle v. First Tenn. Bank

    G058137 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 28, 2020)

    The phrase "transact intrastate business" has a specific and legally defined meaning: "'"Transact intrastate business" means to enter into repeated and successive transactions of business in this state, other than in interstate or foreign commerce.'" (Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 840.) A foreign corporation may later surrender its certificate of qualification by filing a certificate of surrender.

  7. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Hansen

    No. G057356 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2020)

    Under the SSFMJA, "the entry of a sister state judgment by the clerk is a ministerial, not a judicial, act." (Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 838 (Conseco).) In October 2013, Hansen moved back to California from Hawaii, settling in Long Beach, where he has resided continuously since then.

  8. Geilenkirchen v. Baisden

    No. F076823 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2019)

    " 'The ruling on a motion to set aside a judgment rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be set aside on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion appears. [Citations.] On appeal ... we view all factual matters most favorably to the prevailing party. [Citation.]' " (Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 841 (Conseco), quoting Tsakos Shipping & Trading, S.A. v. Juniper Garden Town Homes, Ltd. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 74, 88.) It is generally accepted that the appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court's ruling exceeded the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances before it being considered.

  9. Employee Management Corp. v. Aloha Group Limited

    B249664 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 17, 2014)

    (ยง 1710.60; Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 838 (Conseco).)

  10. Trajkovski Invest AB v. I.Am.Plus Elecs.

    2:21-cv-04246-ODW (JEMx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2022)

    (Reply 2.) I.AM.PLUS cites two cases to support this proposition: Conseco Mktg., LLC v. IFA & Ins. Servs., Inc., 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 840 (2013), and United Med. Mgmt. Ltd. v. Gatto, 49 Cal.App.4th 1732 (1996). However, these cases concern only foreign corporations that failed to register with the Secretary of State in the first instance, and do not consider foreign corporations that registered and later forfeited.