Yu v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.
Decision Date | 27 October 2020 |
Docket Number | B304011 |
Citation | 56 Cal.App.5th 636,270 Cal.Rptr.3d 606 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Michael S. YU, a Law Corporation, et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; Bank of the West et al., Real Parties in Interest. |
Shaw Koepke & Satter, Jens B. Koepke ; PB Law Group, Luan K. Phan, Los Angeles, and Jody M. Borrelli for Petitioners.
No appearance for Respondent.
Miller Barondess, Brian A. Procel, Mira Hashmall, Los Angeles, and Colin H. Rolfs for Real Party in Interest Bank of the West.
Valle Makoff, John M. Moscarino ; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland and Kent L. Richland, Los Angeles, for Real Parties in Interest Commercial Loan Solutions III, LLC and Commercial Loan Solutions, LLC.
After the referee in a consensual general reference ( Code Civ. Proc.,1 § 638 ) filed his decisions in the trial court, but before entry of judgment on those decisions, the court entertained motions to set them aside and ordered a new trial to be had by the court, not by the referee. Michael S. Yu, a Law Corporation, My Law Holdings, LLC, and Michael S. Yu individually (together petitioners), who had prevailed before the referee, petitioned this court for a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to enter judgment on the referee's decisions, or alternatively, to direct the trial court to order a new trial to be heard by the referee. We issued an order to show cause.
Our review of the statutory scheme compels the conclusion that the trial court had no authority to review the consensual referee's decisions before entering judgment on them. We further conclude however, that the trial court was authorized to entertain the motions as postjudgment motions and, based on the parties’ reference agreement, properly ruled that the new trial would be heard by the court and not by the referee. Accordingly, we grant the writ petition.
The underlying lawsuit, brought by petitioners against Commercial Loan Solutions, LLC, Commercial Loan Solutions III, LLC (together, CLS), and Bank of The West (the Bank, and together with CLS, real parties), arose out of the nonjudicial foreclosure of petitioner's property. Real parties moved the trial court to assign all issues in the lawsuit to a referee pursuant to reference clauses contained in certain forbearance agreements. The reference clauses provided, in the section entitled "Jury Waiver and Judicial Reference" (boldface and capitalization omitted), that the parties waived any right to a trial by jury and agreed that in (Capitalization omitted.) (Capitalization omitted.)
The trial court granted real parties’ motion to compel a judicial reference and assigned the matter to a retired trial court judge.2 The lawsuit was tried in two phases. After the liability phase, each side filed proposed statements of decision, objections, and other briefing with the referee. The referee then issued a 53-page decision finding in favor of petitioners on 10 causes of action. The referee awarded petitioners over $2 million in damages and granted them equitable relief. In response to the Bank's objections, the referee issued a supplemental decision that corrected typographical errors, but made no substantive changes.
At the close of the punitive damages phase of the trial, the referee assessed $5 million in punitive damages against the Bank. The final decision awarded petitioners costs and fees. Having completed the "consensual judicial reference pursuant to section 638" (capitalization omitted), the referee filed all of his decisions with the trial court.
Before the trial court entered judgment on the referee's decisions, real parties moved to set them aside, arguing that Calderwood v. Pyser (1866) 31 Cal. 333 ( Calderwood ) authorized the court to set aside a referee's erroneous conclusions of law based on the facts found in the decisions prior to entering judgment. The Bank alternatively sought entry of judgment on the decisions before setting them aside.
Petitioners argued that the statutes governing references obligated the trial court first to enter judgment on the referee's decisions before review could occur. Petitioners added that any new trial or retrial must take place before the referee, not the court.
The trial court found legal errors in the referee's decisions. Yet, the court was (Original italics omitted, and italics added.) The trial court set a new trial date to retry the entire case.
Petitioners’ writ petition ensued. We stayed the trial and issued an order to show cause. We now grant the writ petition.
In determining the trial court's authority with respect to a reference, we first review the parties’ agreement and the reference order. (§ 643, subd. (b); see SFPP v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co . (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 452, 463–464, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 96 ( SFPP ).) Here, the reference provisions give no guidance. They broadly authorize the referee to determine all issues, to enter equitable and legal relief, and to rule on any motion "which would be authorized in a trial ." (Capitalization omitted, italics added.) The contracts make no mention of review. In the absence of contractual guidance, we are left to consider the statutes themselves.
We apply well-established rules of statutory interpretation. Our task " " ( 1550 Laurel Owner's Assn., Inc. v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1146, 1151, 239 Cal.Rptr.3d 740.) "The meaning and construction of a statute is a question of law, which we examine de novo." ( Ibid . )
References are governed by sections 638 to 645.1. Section 638 provides in relevant part: Proceedings under subdivision (a) of section 638 are called general references because they authorize the referee to consider any or all of the issues raised, whereas those under subdivision (b) of section 638 are considered special references, as they limit the referee to specific factual findings to aid the trial court in its determination of the action. This case is a section 638, subdivision (a) general, consensual reference.3
Nonconsensual references, not at issue here, are governed by section 639. Nonconsensual references are always considered to be special references.
The relevant statutes for our purposes are sections 644 and 645.
Section 644, governing the effect of a referee or commissioner's decision, provides in subdivision (a) that in "the case of a consensual general reference pursuant to Section 638, the decision of the referee or commissioner upon the whole issue must stand as the decision of the court , and upon filing of the statement of decision with the clerk of the court, judgment may be entered thereon in the same manner as if the action had been tried by the court ." (Italics added.)
Section 645, titled "Exception and review of referee's decision," expansively states: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
LNSU #1, LLC v. Alta Del Mar Coastal Collection Cmty. Ass'n
... ... D080208, D081204 California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division August 25, 2023 ... ... APPEALS from a judgment and postjudgment orders of the ... Superior Court of San Diego County, No ... 37-2018-00032291-CU-MC-CTL Eddie C. Sturgeon, Judge ... ...
-
Elmassian v. Flores
...Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1113, 1119, 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 21, 302 P.3d 211 ; Michael S. Yu, a Law Corp. v. Superior Court (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 636, 644, 270 Cal.Rptr.3d 606.) A directed verdict can be granted only when "the court ... determines there is no evidence of s......
-
Corzo v. Bellehumeur
...(1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1553, 1560.) Reference of a punitive damages claim is not unprecedented. (See, e.g., Yu v. Superior Court (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 636, 643.) Notably, the incomplete record does not clarify whether any party specifically reserved the right to a jury trial on punitive dama......
-
Table of cases
...113 Cal. Rptr. 829, §9:10 Yovanov, People v. (1999) 69 Cal. App. 4th 392, 81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 586, §1:160 Yu v. Superior Court (2020) 56 Cal. App. 5th 636, 270 Cal. Rptr. 3d 606, §4:90 Yut Ling, People v. (1888) 74 Cal. 569, 16 P. 489, §12:100 Z Zador Corp. v. Kwan (1995) 31 Cal. App. 4th 1285......
-
Order of proceedings
...between the parties, a general referee’s decision is reviewable only after a judgment has been entered. Yu v. Superior Court (2020) 56 Cal. App. 5th 636, 652, 270 Cal. Rptr. 3d 606. When the parties have agreed that the reference will be conducted in accordance with applicable statutory and......
-
Remedies for the Courthouse Flu: How to Get Your Civil Case Tried During the Covid-19 Crisis
...court, judgment may be entered thereon in the same manner as if the action had been tried by the court." (Yu v. Superior Court (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 636, 649.) The term "may" used in this statute is not permissive; instead, it has been determined to mandate entry of judgment in accordance w......