What is a Motion to Amend Judgment?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Amend Judgment

Recent Rulings on Motion to Amend Judgment

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

However, only section 187 provides the proper authority for amending the judgment as requested.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

THE LAW FIRM OF FOX AND FOX VS VANESSA LEE

A judgment void on its face—meaning where the invalidity is ‘apparent upon an inspection of the judgment-roll’, which includes the proof of service (CCP § 670(a))—may be set aside pursuant to section 473(d) at any time. (See Manson, Iver & York v. Black (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 36, 42.) Where a judgment is valid on its face but is nevertheless deemed void after considering evidence beyond the judgment, the motion must be brought within the same time as a motion brought under CCP § 473.5. (See Rogers v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

LUIS GOMEZ, ET AL. VS PATRICK CHAPMAN

“As an alternative to filing a section 187 motion to add a judgment debtor to a judgment, the judgment creditor may file an independent action on the judgment, alleging that the proposed judgment debtor was an alter ego of an original judgment debtor.” (Highland Springs Conference & Training Center v. City of Banning (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 267, 28.) Susana’s demurrer to the second cause of action is overruled. 3.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB, AN INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE VS CARLOS GUILLERMO GUZMAN, ET AL.

Based on the foregoing, Judgment Creditor Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s Motion to Amend Judgment is GRANTED. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Thus, Upstream is ordered to file and serve supplemental briefing addressing the ability of the Court to grant its request pursuant to Civil Code section 1785.11 and Code of Civil Procedure section 187, as well as provide additional details about its collection efforts and status of the Judgment.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROBERT LEE JOHNSON VS K-KARS INC ET AL

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff Robert Lee Johnson’s Motion to Amend Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 684.020, the Motion to Amend Judgment must be served directly on the judgment debtor. Plaintiff’s Proof of Service filed on October 11, 2019 indicates that the Motion was served on Defendants’ counsel rather than on Defendant itself.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

DAVID MINSER V. COLLECT ACCESS, LLC, ZEE LAW GROUP, PC, ET AL.

The Court finds the judgment against Collect Access is void, and Collect Access’ motion to set it aside pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d) is granted. The Court overrules Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Tappan Zee. No evidentiary objections were filed by Collect Access. 7

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

SIEGEL V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

CCP Section 473(d) provides that “[t]he court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” (See also Commonwealth Land Title Co. v. Kornbluth (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 518, 531.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

JACK MURRAY ET AL VS FRANK LYONS ET AL

Under section 187, the trial court is authorized with the authority to amend a judgment to add additional judgment debtors. (Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486, 508.) “As a general rule, ‘a court may amend its judgment at any time so that the judgment will properly designate the real defendants.’.... Judgments may be amended to add additional judgment debtors on the ground that a person or entity is the alter ego of the original judgment debtor....

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JOAN CHEROTI VS TRINA PATTERSON, ET AL.

Proc. § 473(d).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

INVESTMENT RETRIEVERS VS. MCVEY, PAUL

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Judgment to Add Alter Ego of Judgment Debtor – DENIED with prejudice. Plaintiff has failed to come forward with sufficient evidence to prove that Pamela Stephens was or is the alter ego of her brother, Defendant Paul McVey, or the corporation of which he is apparently the sole shareholder, Defendant McVey Insurance Broker, Inc., so as to warrant an amendment of the judgment in this matter. In particular, Plaintiff has been unable to demonstrate that Ms.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

JERRY VAN SYOC VS LANGER FARMS, LLC, ET AL.

Motion to Set Aside Dismissal Plaintiff Jerry Van Syoc moves to set aside dismissal of this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, Section 473(b), or alternatively, Section 473(d). Without an attorney affidavit of fault, the burden is on the movant to show its neglect was excusable, i.e., the acts of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances. (See Jackson v. Bank of America (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 55, 58.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

CLAVESILLA VS. STRONGKIDS MEDICAL GROUP, INC

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d), the court may set aside any void judgment or order. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d).) “Under section 473, subdivision (d), the court may set aside a default judgment which is valid on its face, but void, as a matter of law, due to improper service. [Citation.]” (Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544.) A motion under this section may be made at any time. (Schwab v. Southern California Gas Co. (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1320.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT (CCP § 187) TENTATIVE RULING: Judgment Debtor L.A. Clasps dba Novita’s Motion is DENIED. SERVICE: [X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK [X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK [X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK OPPOSITION: None filed as of June 17, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None REPLY: None filed as of June 17, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None ANALYSIS: Background On February 23, 1996, Judgment Creditor L.A.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

OZUNA ELECTRIC COMPANY INC. V. INTEGRATED PROCESS CONTROL ENGINEERING, INC.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 187, “the court has the authority to amend a judgment to add additional judgment debtors.” (NEC Electronics Inc. v. Hurt (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 772, 778.) When a new party is added after judgment, due process requires that this party be given opportunity to contest liability before judgment is entered against it. (Cal. Judges Benchbook: Civil Procedure After Trial (CJER 2019 Update) Other Postjudgment Proceedings, § 3.93; see Wolf Metals Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2020

CITIBANK VS. LINXPAY

HEARING ON MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT FILED BY CITIBANK, N.A. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part as explained below. Facts Plaintiff, Citibank, sued its customer, Linxpay, Inc., after the latter overdrew its bank account by over $130,000. On July 19, 2019, Linxpay, through its sole officer, Patrick Hammond, agreed to settle the case for $125,000 in five equal installments and agreed that a larger judgment could be entered if it breached the agreement.

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2020

CENTENO V. CITY OF FRESNO

(Federal District Court’s Order of February 28, 2019, Denying Defendants’ Motion to Amend Judgment and Remanding Action to State Court.) The District Court found that defendants had failed to show that its earlier decision was clearly erroneous. (Id. at pp. 5:16-6:16.) However, the District Court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim and instead remanded the matter back to the state court for further proceedings. (Id. at p. 7:1-14.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SACOR FINANCIAL, INC. VS. ZUBKO

Proc., § 473 (d) provides that “The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” In the Default Judgment, the Judgment declared seven instruments void instead of three as intended. Therefore, the Motion is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

NGHIEM V. GONZALEZ

Plaintiffs Van Ngheim and Law Offices of Van Nghiem’s motion to amend judgment is denied. The request to specify an amount of prejudgment interest is untimely. “[P]rejudgment interest is not a cost, but an element of damages. . . . prejudgment interest should be awarded in the judgment on the basis of a specific request therefor made before entry of judgment.” (North Oakland Medical Clinic v. Rogers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 824, 830.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2020

CITIBANK VS. LINXPAY

HEARING ON MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT FILED BY CITIBANK, N.A. * TENTATIVE RULING: * The motion is continued to June 17, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. to ensure defendant is given notice and to avoid any potential confusion over the extensive court “holidays”. Plaintiff is to promptly provide notice of the new hearing date to the defendant and file such proof with the court. Defendant will have the customary time to file any opposition 9 court days before the hearing.

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2020

BYEONG JIN YU VS NAM CHO ET AL

(BC511149) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT (filed 1/17/20) TENTATIVE RULING Defendant’s opposition papers were filed by the Law Offices of David Won. No substitution of attorney has been filed on behalf of Nam Min Cho. Cho’s counsel of record is unclear, either Jacklyn Kim or Aaron Garcia. The matter is continued to _____________________. Unless a proper substitution of attorney is filed within 15 days, the court will strike the opposition and proceed with the motion.

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DAVIDOF, RAMIN VS. DAVIS, MICHAEL R

Proc. §473(d).) The judgment shall be set aside and Defendant shall submit his response to the Complaint within 20 days. CV-19-002751 – MERCADO, MARIA VS. RIVERA, RAMON – Defendant Don Degraff’s Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint – OVERRULED, without prejudice. The moving defendant failed to submit proof of service of the instant matter. Therefore, the Court is unable to conclude that Plaintiffs were properly notified of these proceedings. The Court also notes that Plaintiffs are now self-represented.

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

ITC FINANCIAL LICENSES, INC. VS. STAN SCHULDINER

Motion To Amend Judgment Matter on calendar for Friday, March 13, 2020, Line 1, Motion To Amend Judgment If the tentative ruling is contested, the hearing will be at 9: 15am, not 9: 30am. Respondent and cross-complainant Stan Schuldiner's motion to amend judgment is denied. Assuming without deciding that the motion is timely and the court has the authority to grant the motion at this stage of the case, the motion is in substance a request to reconsider the October 10, 2019 order yet Mr.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

ITC FINANCIAL LICENSES, INC. VS. STAN SCHULDINER

Motion To Amend JudgmentMarch 13, 2020 Line 1: RESPONDENT STAN SCHULDINER Motion To Amend Judgment is Transferred to heard on March 13, 2020 at 9: 30 a.m. in Dept. 302, Law & Motion. (302/jpt)

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

DOV CHARNEY VS STANDARD GENERAL LP ET AL

On August 26, 2019, the Court granted Judgment-Creditors’ motion to amend judgment to add Art, Commerce, and Manufacturing Solutions, LLC and Apex Real Estate Management, LLC as additional judgment debtors. On January 21, 2020, the case was again transferred to Department 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse. The parties also submitted stipulations to consolidate the cases for purposes of judgment enforcement only. Here, case number BC581130 is no longer pending before the court.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 44     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.