Judge delays summary-judgment hearing in domesticating California judgment against Thomas Sullivan

The court addressed Diversitis Holdings LLC’s effort to domesticate a California judgment against Thomas Sullivan and reset a summary-judgment motion to permit the defendant time to consult prior counsel.

The presiding judge summarized the background: a California judgment for about $88,892.14 was entered against Sullivan and the creditor filed a motion to domesticate that judgment in Tennessee. Sullivan submitted a handwritten objection and told the court he believed the matter had been resolved years earlier through an agreement with a financing company and that he had not heard anything more about it until now. The judge explained the rules governing motions for summary judgment and said the plaintiff is generally entitled to domestication unless the defendant submits facts showing a material dispute. Because Sullivan is pro se and said he had a prior attorney, the judge reset the motion to give Sullivan the opportunity to consult his prior lawyer, Tim Potter.

Plaintiff’s counsel objected briefly to the length of any reset given the prior timeline, but the court favored caution for pro se litigants and set the matter for April 24 before Judge Turnbull. The judge said Sullivan should use the time to obtain copies of relevant documents and to confer with counsel so the court can determine whether any material factual dispute exists before ruling on summary judgment.