Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: BC342574, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC342574    Hearing Date: October 30, 2023    Dept: 68

Alvin E. Williams, et al. vs. Bentley Motors Inc., et al., BC342574

Motion to Amend Judgment

Motion

            Judgement was rendered in 2009.  It is now 2023.  Plaintiffs repeatedly seek to have the Court amend this final judgment.

This motion is essentially the same as one that Plaintiffs filed a couple months ago which this Court denied on September 1, 2023.  And it is repetitive of the numerous motions that Plaintiffs have filed over the years seeking such relief, all of which have been denied.  This motion is not appropriate and it is abusive.  THE COURT DENIES THIS MOTION.

Plaintiffs have once again filed a motion to amend a judgment that was entered on April 27, 2009. Plaintiffs’ reason for requesting this amendment is that Judge Mooney allegedly acted in collusion with the defendants in this case to defraud Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are requesting that the judgment be amended to include exemplary damages and to increase the judgment amount.

            Plaintiffs have cited no authority for amending a judgment under the circumstances which Plaintiffs are alleging. Plaintiffs cite CCP § 187, but this section is simply about the general powers conferred upon a court. Plaintiffs also cite some authority regarding judgments as the final determination of the right of the parties (CCP § 577), but this authority does not support what Plaintiffs are arguing should be done.

            Judgments that are void on their face may be amended at any time. (Manson, Iver, & York v. Black (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 36, 42.) However, Plaintiffs allegations of fraud go beyond what would be evident on the face of the judgment.

            PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IS DENIED.

            THE COURT CAUTIONS PLAINTIFFS THAT FURTHER IMPROPER REPETITIVE MOTIONS MAY RESULT IN THE COURT ISSUING SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS.