On August 18, 2009 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Wells Fargo Bank,
and
Suesue, Michael,
for civil
in the District Court of Stanislaus County.
Preview
REESE LAW GROUP Electronically Filed
Christopher Beyer - Bar #213264 12/7/2020 10:12 AM
3168 Lionshead Avenue Superior Court of California
Carlsbad, CA 92010 County of Stanislaus
Telephone (760) 842-5850 Clerk of the Court
Attorney for Plaintiff By: Kimberly Mean, Deputy
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
STANISLAUS JUDICIAL DISTRICT
WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL BANK, Case No. 644611
Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
v. MOTION TO AMEND RENEWED
JUDGMENT
MICHAEL SUESUE,
Date: 2/2/2021
Defendant, Time: 8:30AM
Dept: 22
SUBMITTED ON THE MOVING
PAPERS WITHOUT AN APPEARANCE
PER CRC 3.1304(c)
I.
FACTS
On December 21, 2009, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff, WELLS FARGO
FINANCIAL BANK and against Defendant, MICHAEL SUESUE, in the amount of $3,494.51. Said
judgment was then renewed on June 26, 2019, for the amount of $3,494.51. However, the Application
for Renewal did not take into consideration credits of $994.31 that should have been applied to the
original judgment balance. When duly applying this overlooked credit, the correct judgment amount is
$2,500.20. Accordingly, Plaintiff submits this Motion to Amend Renewed Judgment to reflect
$2,500.20 as the total judgment amount.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIESIl.
THE COURT MAY USE ALLOW AMENDMENT OF RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT
California Code of Civil Procedure section 473 provides that California courts may “allow a
party to amend any pleading or proceeding . . . by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a
mistake in any other respect.” Furthermore, California Code of Civil Procedure section 187 provides
that a California court may use “all the means necessary” to carry its jurisdiction into effect.
In this case, Plaintiff's renewal of judgment contained an error in that it did not account for
credits to the judgment amount. Specifically, the Renewal of Judgment submitted to the court on June
26, 2019, failed to account for credits $994.31, which would reduce the principal judgment amount to
$2,500.20. This is the credit amount that is reflected in the renewal that is submitted with this Motion.
Pursuant to California law, the Court has the authority to amend the judgment so that it properly
reflects the correct amount of the judgment.
As such, Plaintiff requests the Court amend Plaintiff's renewed judgment as to Defendant
MICHAEL SUESUE, so that it properly reflect the credits that were applied to the original judgment
balance. The corrected total judgment amount requested in Plaintiff’s instant motion is $2,500.20.
IIL.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests the Court amend the renewal of judgment to reflect
the total judgment amount of $2,500.20.
nm
Dated: December 2, 2020 Chute dey n—
Christopher Beyer, Esq.,
Attorney for Plaintiff
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
Document Filed Date
December 07, 2020
Case Filing Date
August 18, 2009
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
REESE LAW GROUP Electronically Filed Christopher Beyer - Bar #213264 12/7/2020 10:12 AM 3168 Lionshead Avenue Superior Court of California Carlsbad, CA 92010 County of Stanislaus Telephone (760) 842-5850 Clerk of the Court Attorney for Plaintiff By: Kimberly Mean, Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STANISLAUS STANISLAUS JUDICIAL DISTRICT WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL BANK, Case No. 644611 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF v. MOTION TO AMEND RENEWED JUDGMENT MICHAEL SUESUE, Date: 2/2/2021 Defendant, Time: 8:30AM Dept: 22 SUBMITTED ON THE MOVING PAPERS WITHOUT AN APPEARANCE PER CRC 3.1304(c) I. FACTS On December 21, 2009, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff, WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL BANK and against Defendant, MICHAEL SUESUE, in the amount of $3,494.51. Said judgment was then renewed on June 26, 2019, for the amount of $3,494.51. However, the Application for Renewal did not take into consideration credits of $994.31 that should have been applied to the original judgment balance. When duly applying this overlooked credit, the correct judgment amount is $2,500.20. Accordingly, Plaintiff submits this Motion to Amend Renewed Judgment to reflect $2,500.20 as the total judgment amount. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIESIl. THE COURT MAY USE ALLOW AMENDMENT OF RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT California Code of Civil Procedure section 473 provides that California courts may “allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding . . . by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect.” Furthermore, California Code of Civil Procedure section 187 provides that a California court may use “all the means necessary” to carry its jurisdiction into effect. In this case, Plaintiff's renewal of judgment contained an error in that it did not account for credits to the judgment amount. Specifically, the Renewal of Judgment submitted to the court on June 26, 2019, failed to account for credits $994.31, which would reduce the principal judgment amount to $2,500.20. This is the credit amount that is reflected in the renewal that is submitted with this Motion. Pursuant to California law, the Court has the authority to amend the judgment so that it properly reflects the correct amount of the judgment. As such, Plaintiff requests the Court amend Plaintiff's renewed judgment as to Defendant MICHAEL SUESUE, so that it properly reflect the credits that were applied to the original judgment balance. The corrected total judgment amount requested in Plaintiff’s instant motion is $2,500.20. IIL. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests the Court amend the renewal of judgment to reflect the total judgment amount of $2,500.20. nm Dated: December 2, 2020 Chute dey n— Christopher Beyer, Esq., Attorney for Plaintiff MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES