Simone v. Jameson CA4/3

Filed 12/13/24 Simone v. Jameson CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ELIJAH POMAIKA SIMONE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G062695

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2016-00832256)

LELA JAMESON, as Personal OPINION Representative, etc.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Randell L. Wilkinson, Judge. (Retired judge of the Orange Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Request for judicial notice granted.

Horvitz & Levy, David M. Axelrad, John F. Querio, Gaspard Rappoport; Cullins & Grandy and Douglas D. Cullins, for Defendant and Appellant. The Simon Law Group, Brad M. Simon; Williams Iagmin and Jon R. Williams, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * Bruce Jameson hit Elijah Pomaika Simone with his car, severely injuring him. Simone’s lawsuit against Jameson in the Orange County Superior Court (the Personal Injury Action) resulted in a judgment which included approximately $1.6 million in prejudgment interest. After Jameson died, Simone obtained authority from the probate court in Arkansas to bring an action on behalf of Jameson’s estate (the Estate) in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against Jameson’s auto insurance provider (the Bad Faith Action). During that litigation, the parties entered a stipulation regarding the amount of the judgment in the Personal Injury Action, which failed to include the $1.6 million in prejudgment interest. The parties to that action dispute whether this omission was a mistake. Simone subsequently applied for renewal of the judgment in the Personal Injury Action. The Estate contends the trial court abused its discretion by (1) denying its motion to vacate renewal of the judgment; and (2) improperly permitting accrual of interest on the prejudgment interest amount. We conclude these contentions lack merit and therefore affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion to vacate renewal of the judgment. STATEMENT OF FACTS In April 2015, Jameson’s car struck Simone while Simone was riding his bicycle, causing severe injury. Jameson was insured by State Farm