DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, et al. vs RICHARD

25CV022197: DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, et al. vs RICHARD 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment in Department 16C

these violations, the Court in its discretion has considered the entirety of Defendant’s reply in reaching its determination.

Article IV, section I of the United States Constitution provides that “[f]ull faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other State.” “It has long been the law that ‘the judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity, and effect in every other court in the United States, which it had in the state where it was pronounced.’ [Citations.]” ((Liquidator of Integrity Ins. Co. v. Hendrix (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 971, 975 [quoting Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co. (1980) 448 U.S. 261, 270].)

“Therefore, under California law, the judgment of a sister state must be given full faith and credit if that sister state had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, and all interested parties were given reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard. [Citation.]” (Brinker v. Superior Court (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1296, 1299.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1710.40 provides, in relevant part:

(a) A judgment entered pursuant to this chapter may be vacated on any ground which would be a defense to an action in this state on the sister state judgment, including the ground that the amount of interest accrued on the sister state judgment and included in the judgment entered pursuant to this chapter is incorrect.

(c) Upon the hearing of the motion to vacate the judgment under this section, the judgment may be vacated upon any ground provided in subdivision (a) and another and different judgment entered, including, but not limited to, another and different judgment for the judgment creditor if the decision of the court is that the judgment creditor is entitled to such different judgment.”

As noted in Washoe Development Co. v. Guaranty Federal Bank (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1522:

“Following section 1710.40, the Law Revision Commission's comment explains that defenses to enforcement of the judgment may include the following: (1) the judgment is not final and unconditional; (2) the judgment was rendered in excess of jurisdiction; (3) the judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud; (4) the judgment is not enforceable in the state of rendition; (5) the judgment has already been paid; (6) the plaintiff is guilty of misconduct; or (7) suit on the judgment is barred by the statute of limitations in the state where enforcement is sought. (Deering's Ann. Code Civ. Proc., § 1740.40 (1981 ed.) p. 405.)”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV022197: DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, et al. vs RICHARD 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment in Department 16C

Defendant argues that the New Mexico judgment is not final and enforceable, was obtained by extrinsic fraud, and is not enforceable in California.

The finality requirement focuses on whether the rendering court has completed its work on the dispute. Specifically, the Law Revision Commission Comments to section 1710.40 provide that “finality means that no further action by the court rendering the judgment is necessary to resolve the matter litigated.” (1974 Addition [emphasis added]; see Silbrico Corp. v. Raanan (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 202, 207; World Wide Imports, Inc. v. Bartel (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1010.) As such, it appears that the salient question is whether the trial court itself needs to take additional action to complete the judgment.

In the moving papers, Defendant argues that the New Mexico judgment is not final and complete because the court has not yet ruled on his motion to dismiss. On reply, Defendant updates the procedural background of the case since the motion was filed and indicates his motion to dismiss was denied, but that the judgment is still not final because the New Mexico court did not dispose of his alternative “motion for reconsideration” embedded within his motion to dismiss. However, as the New Mexico district court has entered “Final Judgment” on July 18, 2025, and Defendant did not appeal, it appears there are no further proceedings that may occur in that matter. Defendant’s post-judgment motion to dismiss does not affect the judgment’s finality.

To the extent that Defendant argues that the California judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud or that the judgment is not enforceable in California, Defendant has presented no substantial argument, evidence, or authority in support of these grounds for the instant motion. A court need not consider an issue where reasoned, substantial argument and citation to supporting authorities are lacking. (Woods v. Horton (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 658, 677; Addam v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 368, 373; People v. Gray (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 973, 994.)

Accordingly, the Court finds that vacation of the judgment is not warranted. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV022197: DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, et al. vs RICHARD 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment in Department 16C

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID 16030877014. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtreporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.

Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.