Morrison & Associates v. Gellerman
Filed 3/15/06 Morrison & Associates v. Gellerman CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| MORRISON & ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BRUCE E. GELLERMAN, Defendant and Respondent. |
F045902
(Super. Ct. No. CVL1412)
OPINION |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. William G. Polley, Judge.
Germain Law, Daniel S. Glass, and Michael R. Germain for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Law Office of Douglas A. MacDonald and Douglas A. MacDonald for Defendant and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
In 1992, the Justice Court of Tuolumne County granted the motion of plaintiff Morrison & Associates, Inc. (the corporation), for summary judgment in its action against defendant Bruce E. Gellerman (Gellerman), for $14,975 plus attorney's fees, costs, and interest. The judgment was never satisfied.
In 2002, Maiya Morrison (Ms. Morrison), the president, chief executive officer (CEO), and corporate agent of the corporation, filed an application in the Superior Court of Tuolumne County to renew the judgment against Gellerman, which had increased to over $51,000 with postjudgment interest. Gellerman brought a motion to vacate the renewal because the renewal had been filed by Ms. Morrison as an individual, and the corporate status of the corporation had been suspended for failure to pay taxes. The corporation immediately paid the requisite fees to revive its corporate status, and argued that it properly renewed the judgment and Gellerman's motion to vacate the renewal was untimely. The matter was heard by the Superior Court of Tuolumne County, which granted Gellerman's motion to vacate the renewal of judgment. The corporation has filed the instant appeal and argues that Gellerman's motion to vacate was not timely filed, and the motion to renew the judgment was valid because the corporate status was revived during the pendency of the case.
We will determine that as a result of the unification of the municipal and superior courts, the underlying matter in this dispute was a limited civil case because the amount in controversy, as defined by statute, was less than $25,000, the matter was never reclassified as an unlimited civil case, and, as a result, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal on the merits. We will dismiss the instant appeal and remand the matter to the appellate division of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County, for further proceedings on the merits of the underlying dispute.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On January 9, 2004, Gellerman filed a notice of motion to vacate the renewal of judgment in the case of Morrison & Associates, Inc. v. Gellerman, in the Superior Court of Tuolumne County, case No. CVL1412 (the action). On January 30, 2004, the corporation filed opposition to Gellerman's motion to vacate. On February 5, 2004, Gellerman filed a reply to the corporation's opposition.
On March 25, 2004, the superior court conducted a hearing and granted Gellerman's motion to vacate the renewal of judgment. On May 27, 2004, the court filed the order which granted the motion to vacate. On June 14, 2004, the notice of entry of order was filed in the superior court.
On June 25, 2004, the corporation filed a notice of appeal.
On August 19, 2004, this court stayed the preparation of the appellate record, and requested the parties to file letter briefs as to whether this appeal was properly before this court. On August 26 and September 3, 2004, the parties filed their letter briefs.
On November 23, 2004, this court vacated the stay of the preparation of the appellate record, ordered the parties to brief the case, and deferred ruling on the appealability issue pending full review of the case.
On April 28, 2005, this court granted the parties' stipulation to augment the appellate record with briefing filed in the superior court.
FACTS
The following facts are taken from the motions, pleadings, and exhibits filed in this action.
The Underlying Action
â€
