Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: LAM06CC3153, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: LAM06CC3153     Hearing Date: December 19, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Cornell Gilchrist

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT

(None)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Cornell Gilchrist’s Motion to Vacate Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

SERVICE: 

[   ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 NONE

[   ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 NONE

[   ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     NONE

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of December 13, 2022.                     [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of December 13, 2022.                     [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On October 21, 2022, Defendant Cornell Gilchrist (“Defendant”), in propria persona, filed the instant Motion to Vacate Judgment entered against Defendant and for Plaintiff National Enterprises, Inc. (“Plaintiff”).

On November 16, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion noting several deficiencies and allowing Defendant an opportunity to correct these deficiencies.  (11-16-22 Minute Order.)

II.              Legal Standard & Discussion

Defendant has filed a one-page Motion “asking the Court to cancel the judgment” because he learned about the judgment on October 17, 2022, and “was never notified of this Court date.”  (Mot. p. 1.)  He states that he never appeared at the trial because he did not receive notice.  (Ibid.)

On November 16, 2022, the  Court noted the following deficiencies with the instant Motion.  (11-16-22 Minute Order.)

First, Defendant has not filed proof that the instant Motion has been served on the Plaintiff, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(a), and Code of Civil Procedure § 1005.

Second, the instant Motion does not contain the required papers, including a proper notice of hearing, motion, and a memorandum in support of the motion.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1112(a).)

Third, the Notice of Motion must contain “the nature of order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.1110(a), 3.1112(d)(3).)  It must also state “[t]he date, time, and location, if ascertainable, of any scheduled hearing and the name of the hearing judge, if ascertainable.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(b)(1).)  Here, Defendant has not provided the required information including the time of the hearing, the address of the courthouse where the hearing will take place, and the name of the judge presiding over the case.  (Mot. p. 1.)

Finally, given that Defendant has not set forth the grounds upon which he seeks to vacate the judgment, the Court cannot determine whether relief is warranted.

For these reasons, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion and provided Defendant with additional time to correct the deficiencies noted above.  (11-16-22 Minute Order.)

To date, no additional papers have been filed correcting these deficiencies.  Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED without prejudice.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Defendant Cornell Gilchrist’s Motion to Vacate Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving party is to give notice.