Goldman

Goldman v. Simpson

Bad Law
160 Cal. App. 4th 255·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 242·72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 729
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 20, 2008B200082California2,760 words

Opinion

Opinion

Willhite, J.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Orenthal James Simpson appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate the renewal of a money judgment in favor of plaintiff Frederic Goldman. Simpson contends that the renewal of the judgment was void because he had insufficient contacts with California to confer personal jurisdiction when the renewal was entered. We conclude that the trial court properly denied Simpson’s motion to vacate because it was untimely, and because it was based on a ground—insufficient contacts with California to confer personal jurisdiction at the time of the renewal—unavailable under the statutory renewal of judgment procedure. Rather, the court had continuing jurisdiction, derived from its jurisdiction at the time of the original judgment, to enter the renewal. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying the motion to vacate renewal of the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Judgment was entered against Simpson on March 10, 1997, in Goldman’s action for wrongful death and for damages based on survival rights filed by Goldman individually, and as personal representative of the estate of Ronald Lyle Goldman, deceased. On September 21, 2006, Goldman filed an…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.