Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: NC060255, Date: 2022-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: NC060255    Hearing Date: August 31, 2022    Dept: B

PROCEEDINGS

Sharon McMillin v. Joshua Nathan McMillin, et al.  

NC060255

1. Som Rathmeny Eare’s Motion for Issuance of Second Proposed Amended Judgment

    

   TENTATIVE RULING

   
   

               Som Rathmeny Eare’s Motion for Issuance of Second Proposed Amended Judgment is denied.

    

               The Court, on its own motion, enters its ruling as to the terms of the second amended judgment in this action.

    

               Background

    

               Plaintiff filed the original Complaint on August 31, 2015.  The Court will not recite the long and convoluted history of this action.  The Court will presume that the parties are all aware of the facts and history.  Instead, the Court defers to the Background and History section of the Court of Appeal’s decision entered on September 30, 2021.

    

               Motion for Issuance of Second Proposed Amended Judgment

    

               Defendant/Cross-Complainant Eare moves for the issuance of a Second Proposed Amended Judgment based on the Court of Appeal’s issuance of its opinion on September 30, 2021, the Court of Appeal’s February 23, 2022 order in response to the parties’ joint Motion to Recall Remittitur and Correct the Disposition Nunc Pro Tune which was filed on February 17, 2022, and the subsequent Remittitur issued May 6, 2022.  Moving party’s motion is denied simply on the basis that no legal authority was presented by which a party can move and request of the Court to enter a second proposed amended judgment via a noticed motion.

    

               Instead, the proper procedure in order to obtain entry of judgment is for the prevailing party to submit a proposed judgment, the opposing party to file timely objections, and then, for the Court to enter judgment after considering the verdict, the proposed judgment, and objections.

    

               The Court, on its own motion, has reviewed the verdict, original judgment, remittiturs, proposed amended judgment, and objections.  The Court sustains Plaintiff Sharon McMillin and Cross-Defendant Sarah McMillin’s objections to the second proposed amended judgment.  The Court finds that the proposed amended judgment submitted by Plaintiff Sharon McMillin and Cross-Defendant Sarah McMillin more accurately reflects the judgment and remittiturs issued by the Court of Appeal.  Plaintiff Sharon McMillin and Cross-Defendant Sarah McMillin corrected the numerous clerical and typographical errors included in moving party’s proposed second amended judgment. In addition, paragraphs 9 to 11 of moving party’s proposed second amended judgment are properly stricken as they were not part of the terms of the original judgment, nor were they any part of the disposition of the Court of Appeal’s remittiturs.

    

               Som Rathmeny Eare is ordered to submit a verbatim copy of the corrected version of the proposed judgment submitted by Plaintiff Sharon McMillin and Cross-Defendant Sarah McMillin, attached as Exhibit B to the opposition, forthwith, which the Court will then sign and enter as the Second Amended Judgment in this action.

    

               Som Ratmeny Eare is ordered to give notice of this ruling.