Mnyandu v. L. A. Unified Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 26 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | B260463 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PAMELA TINKY MNYANDU, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. EC053872)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Donna Fields Goldstein, Judge. Affirmed.
Pamela Tinky Mnyandu, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Office of General Counsel, Charlie L. Hill, Assistant General Counsel and Alexander Molina, Chief Labor & Employment Counsel, for Defendants and Respondents.
Appellant Pamela Tinky Mnyandu challenges the denial of her motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d), which sought tovacate a prior order and the judgment entered in the action as void.1 The targeted order was the trial court's denial of appellant's prior motion under section 473, subdivision (d), which also had attacked the judgment as void. In denying Mnyandu's second section 473 motion, the court concluded that appellant had failed to show the prior order and judgment were void. We affirm the ruling on the second section 473 motion.
This is the third time we have addressed an appeal arising out of the underlying action. We begin by reciting the relevant facts regarding the previous appeals, as found in our prior opinions.
In August 2010, Mnyandu initiated the underlying action against her employer, respondent Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), and respondent John McLaughlin. She asserted claims against LAUSD under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) for discrimination based on national origin, harassment, and retaliation. In addition, she asserted claims for assault, civil battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against McLaughlin. The claims were predicated on allegations that, inter alia, McLaughlin made false and derogatory criticisms of Mnyandu's work, harassed her, and grabbed her hand, causing her physical injury.
On January 13, 2012, the trial court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment on Mnyandu's claims. On February 1, 2012, the court entered a judgment in favor of respondents and against appellant, from which Mnyandu noticed a timely appeal. On appeal, she argued that after the trial court ruled onthe summary judgment motion, she obtained additional evidence, including testimony from McLaughlin and other LAUSD employees in an unspecified criminal action against her, that purportedly contradicted respondents' showing in support of the summary judgment motion. In affirming the judgment in an unpublished opinion (Mnyandu v. Los Angeles Unified School District (May 1, 2013, B239104)), we declined to consider that evidence because it had never been presented to the trial court. We explained that to attack a grant of summary judgment on the basis of new evidence, a party ordinarily must seek a new trial or similar relief from the trial court, which Mnyandu had not done.
On May 28, 2013, after our opinion was filed, Mnyandu submitted a motion under section 473, subdivision (d), to set aside the judgment as void on the ground of extrinsic fraud. The motion contended that in seeking summary judgment, respondents' counsel suborned perjury by submitting declarations from McLaughlin and other witnesses that were contradicted by their testimony in a criminal action, People v. Mnyandu (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BA387119). Supporting the motion were excerpts from the reporter's transcript in the criminal action, together with Mnyandu's declaration and declarations from Wendi Cowan and Lori Cole, who stated that from 2008 to 2010, they were percipient witnesses to certain events relevant to Mnyandu's claims against respondents.2
Respondents opposed the motion on several grounds, including that Mnyandu failed to establish extrinsic fraud. They argued that because Mnyandu maintained that the summary judgment had been procured by means of perjured declarations, she alleged only intrinsic fraud, which was insufficient to render the judgment void.
On June 26, 2013, prior to the issuance of our remittitur, the trial court denied the section 473 motion to vacate the judgment, concluding that Mnyandu had not shown that the judgment was void. The court further determined that the motion amounted to an untimely motion for reconsideration (§ 1008), and that appellant's notice of appeal from the judgment divested it of jurisdiction to consider such a motion. Appellant filed no notice of appeal from the June 26, 2013 order.
In October 2013, Mnyandu filed a motion for a new trial, asserting the grounds of "[i]rregularity (fabrication of evidence) by [respondents'] counsel" and newly discovered evidence (§ 657, subds. (1), (4)). The motion contended that respondents' counsel fabricated evidence to support the summary judgment motion by submitting perjured declarations from McLaughlin and other witnesses. In support of that contention, Mnyandu pointed primarily to testimony from McLaughlin in an action before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), Mnyandu v. Los Angeles Unified School District (WCAB Case Nos. ADJ7325988 & ADJ7329616), as well as certain determinations by the administrative law judge and the WCAB in that proceeding. On November 27, 2013, the trial court denied the new trial motion because it had been filed after the statutory deadline for such motions.
In January 2014, Mnyandu noticed an appeal from the November 27, 2013 order. Her subsequent appellate briefing challenged both the June 26, 2013 orderand the November 27, 2013 order. On October 8, 2014, we dismissed that appeal, concluding that the November 27, 2013 order was not appealable, and that the notice of appeal was untimely with respect to the June 26, 2013 order.
On October 14, 2014, Mnyandu filed her second motion under section 473, subdivision (d), which attacked the June 26, 2013 order and the judgment as void. Supporting the motion was Mnyandu's declaration, which maintained that the first section 473 motion "remain[ed] pending" because the trial court had determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion.
On October 31, 2014, the trial court denied Mnyandu's second section 473 motion on grounds that closely tracked its June 26, 2013 ruling. The court concluded that neither section 473 motion demonstrated that the judgment was void, and that the first section 473 motion had amounted to an untimely motion for reconsideration over which the court lacked jurisdiction during the pendency of the first appeal. The court's order further stated: This appeal followed.
Mnyandu's principal contention is that the trial court erred in denying her second section 473 motion because the showing submitted in connection with her first section 473 motion established that the February 2012 judgment is void. In support of that contention, she argues that the judgment was the product of fraud on the court. Mnyandu also presents several related contentions, including that the trial court incorrectly determined that her first section 473 motion was effectivelya motion for reconsideration over which it lacked jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed below, we reject her contentions.
We begin by setting forth the standards applicable to our review of the trial court's ruling and the scope of our inquiry. Mnyandu's second section 473 motion, from which she noticed the current appeal, asserted that her first section 473 motion sought to "set aside a void judgment which was procured by extrinsic fraud by [respondent's counsel]." (Caps deleted.) The second motion further challenged the denial of the first section 473 motion as void on the ground that it gave effect to the void judgment. Our review is thus subject to the principles applicable to attacks on judgments and orders as void due to extrinsic fraud.
Void judgments are ineffective and unenforceable. (County of San Diego v. Gorham (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1226 (County of San Diego).) For that reason, an order incorrectly denying relief from a void judgment is also void, as it gives effect to the judgment. (Carlson v. Eassa (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 684, 691.) A judgment may be shown to be void "on its face" -- that is, without going outside the record or judgment roll -- or on the basis of extrinsic evidence, that is, evidence not included in the record or judgment roll relating to the judgment.3 (Id. at p. 696.) A judgment is void on its face when the record shows that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction over the parties, or granted unauthorized relief. (Becker v. S.P.V. Construction Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 493.) In contrast, as elaborated below (see pt. C. post), establishing that ajudgment is void due to extrinsic fraud ordinarily requires the presentation of evidence not found in the record. (Munoz v. Lopez (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 178, 183-184.) Here, as the trial court noted, the section 473 motions did not attempt to show that the February 2012 judgment was void on its face, but instead relied on extrinsic evidence submitted by Mnyandu after the entry of the judgment to establish the purported extrinsic fraud.
To demonstrate that a...
To continue reading
Request your trial