Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: BC437446, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC437446    Hearing Date: January 19, 2023    Dept: 68

Roche vs. Marshmallow Skins, Inc., et al., Case No BC437446

Motion for Order to Amend Application for and Renewal of Judgment 

Background and Analysis

On July 20, 2011, judgment was entered in this case against Roche and in favor of Defendants. (Katje Decl., at ¶ 2, Ex. A.) On January 21, 2021, Judgment Assignees filed with the Court an Acknowledgment and Assignment of all right, title, and interest in the sums reflected in the July 2011 judgment in favor of Defendants. (Katje Decl., at ¶ 3, Ex. B.) 

On March 16, 2021, within 10 years of the original judgment as required by CCP § 683.120(b), Judgment Assignees filed an Application for and Renewal of Judgment on Defendants’ behalf. (Katje Decl., at ¶¶ 4-5, Ex. C.) That same day, Judgment Assignees received and filed with the Court the Notice of Renewal of Judgment that was issued by the Clerk. (Katje Decl., at ¶ 7, Ex. D.) Upon trying to record the judgment with the Orange County Recorder in September 2021, Judgment Assignees discovered that there was some information missing from the original Application for Renewal. (Katje Decl., at ¶¶ 8-9, Ex. E.) The missing information is the recording date, county, and instrument number of the original judgment entered on July 20, 2011. (Motion at p. 1.) Judgment Assignees now seek to amend the Application for Renewal to reflect the recording information on the original judgment.

While it is unclear why Judgment Assignees waited over a year to file the motion for order to amend, it does appear that the judgment renewal papers were accepted and are enforceable pending amendment. Roche objects to the amendment, mainly on the grounds that he alleges that he was not served the application for renewal or the notice of renewal. (Roche Decl., at ¶ 5.) However, Judgment Assignees indicate that the addresses at which Roche was served were the last known addresses of record for Roche. (Katje Reply Decl., ¶¶ 2-4, Exs. A, B, and C.)

Accordingly, there does not appear to be any reason to deny the motion for order to amend the renewal of judgment. As such, Judgment Assignees’ motion is GRANTED.