State Bar of California v. Kinney CA1/4

Filed 5/14/25 State Bar of California v. Kinney CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, A169946 v. (San Francisco City & CHARLES G. KINNEY, County Super. Ct. No. Defendant and Appellant. CPF-17-515616)

Charles G. Kinney, appearing in propria persona, appeals orders denying his motions (1) to vacate a judgment entered in favor of the State Bar of California (State Bar) in 2017, (2) to consolidate these proceedings with a separate judgment entered in favor of the State Bar in 2018, and (3) for leave to file a cross- complaint. We find no error and affirm. BACKGROUND On May 25, 2016, the Supreme Court disbarred Kinney from the practice of law in California. The Supreme Court’s order included an award of discipline costs payable to the State Bar in the amount of $25,095.89. On April 5, 2017, the State Bar filed a request for entry of judgment (request) against Kinney in Superior Court in the

amount of $25,095.89, plus a $395 filing fee. On April 24, the court entered judgment in the amount requested. On June 14, 2018, the State Bar served the request, the judgment, and a notice of entry of judgment (notice) on Kinney at the address on file with the State Bar and filed a proof of service with the court on the same date. On July 13, 2018, Kinney filed an objection to the request that appears primarily to challenge the merits of the Supreme Court’s underlying disciplinary order. On June 21, 2018, the court entered a second judgment on behalf of the State Bar against Kinney in Case No. CPF-18- 516235. On November 8, 2023, Kinney filed three motions relating to the 2017 judgment: a motion to vacate the judgment, a motion to consolidate the present case with Case No. CPF-18-516235, and a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint against the State Bar, the Franchise Tax Board, and the California Judicial Council. In his motions, Kinney argued, among other things, that the 2017 judgment was void because the State Bar’s request was not served until after the judgment was entered. On December 19, 2023, the State Bar sent a letter to Kinney advising him that he owed $20,415.36 on the 2017 judgment. On December 27, the State Bar filed its opposition to the motion to vacate, arguing that Kinney had failed to present any factual or legal basis on which to set aside the judgment.