Judge Cherol J. Nellon, Case Number: 23STCP04176, Date: 2024-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCP04176, Date: 2024-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP04176 Hearing Date: April 9, 2024 Dept: 14

in re: Paul Ricchiuti

Case Background

Petitioner seeks a court order declaring that various names used by his grandfather belonged to “one and the same person.”

On November 8, 2023, Petitioner filed his verified Petition for Declaratory Relief. No respondent or other party is named.

No trial date has been set.

Instant Motion

This is a petition action. This is the date the court has set for the hearing on the petition, which forms the moving papers.

Decision

The hearing is CONTINUED to May 21, 2024. Petitioner is to file supplemental papers by May 9, 2024. Those papers are to include at least (1) a proposed order/judgment in the form Petitioner seeks and (2) a brief or declaration discussing this court’s jurisdiction and identifying any other instances where such an order/judgment has been issued or authorized by California courts.

Discussion

Petitioner presents a unique request. He is trying to secure recognition of his birthright citizenship from the nation of Italy. In order to do so, he must prove that he is descended from someone who was an Italian citizen. And in order to do that, he must submit documents tracing his descent.

So far so good. But, as is not uncommon, the names of Petitioner’s ancestors are not given quite the same way in every record. Apparently, where there is a discrepancy between the names in the records, Italian law requires a court order finding that the different names refer to “one and the same person.” Petitioner does not cite to the provision of Italian law which contains this requirement, but the court accepts his representation for present purposes.

Petitioner is here now to ask the court to issue the order he needs to take back to the Italian authorities. And the court is not unwilling to assist him. The problem is that the court is unsure of (a) what it is being asked to do, and (b) whether it has the jurisdiction to do it.

Petitioner has not submitted a proposed order or judgment. In the absence of such a proposal, the court cannot tell exactly what the import of granting the petition would be.

Perhaps more importantly, this court’s jurisdiction is not unlimited. It is confined to following procedures authorized by statute, constitution, or enforcing causes of action recognized at common law. See e.g. Drink Tank Ventures LLC v. Real Soda in Real Bottles, Ltd. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5^th 528, 533. Italian law may refuse to recognize certain documents without a court order from the relevant jurisdiction. But the requirements of Italian law cannot confer jurisdiction on a California court to issue such an order.

The petition relies on two code sections. One is the provision which allows for name changes. But Petitioner expressly denies asking for a name change. (Petition ¶ 21). The other is Code of Civil Procedure § 1060, which permits this court to grant declaratory relief. However, the plain language of the statute does not seem to include an action like this one.

Section 1060 provides that a person “interested under a written instrument…or who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another… may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action… for a declaration of his or her rights and duties in the premises, including a determination of any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument.” It is not clear that Plaintiff is properly a “person interested” or that his grandparents’ records are a “written instrument” within the meaning of this section, which is generally applied to contracts or documents transferring interests in property. Nor is it clear that there is an “actual controversy” here; there is no other party to this case.

Petitioner has provided this court with no instance of any other court undertaking to make an order of this type under Section 1060. In the absence of some precedent, or at least a more detailed discussion of the court’s jurisdiction to make the ruling Petitioner wants, the court cannot grant his request.

Conclusion

The court is sympathetic to Petitioner’s situation and request. However, the court has questions about the nature of the order sought and its own power to issue such an order. Therefore, The hearing is CONTINUED to May 21, 2024. Petitioner is to file supplemental papers by May 9, 2024. Those papers are to include at least (1) a proposed order/judgment in the form Petitioner seeks and (2) a brief or declaration discussing this court’s jurisdiction and identifying any other instances where such an order/judgment has been issued or authorized by California courts.