Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 2021-01237623, Date: 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Removal of Heather Hamby for Fraud Upon the Court filed by Elliott McKenzie on 6/13/22

Plaintiff Elliott McKenzie moves for the Court to remove the person known as “Heather Hamby” from this case. The motion is DENIED.

“A basic principle of motion practice is that the moving party must specify for the court and the opposing party the grounds upon which that party seeks relief. (Luri v. Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1125.) Code of Civil Procedure section 1010 requires that a notice of motion must state “the grounds upon which it will be made.”

Arguments that are nothing more than conclusions of counsel should not be considered. (See Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99-100.) Pro per litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 985.)

Plaintiff provides no authority which provides for a motion to remove opposing counsel’s attorney for “fraud upon the court.” In addition, the assertion in the motion that “Defendant’s Attorney known as ‘Heather Hamby’ has been positively identified via auricular anthropometry by way of photographic evidence and Phonetic Anthropometry by way of voicemail recording evidence as the Ukrainian-American actress/persona known as ‘Vera Farmiga,” is argument that is not supported by any admissible evidence.

Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s failure to provide authority for the instant motion, Defendants’ counsel, Heather Hamby, submits a declaration denying all allegations made against by Plaintiff including that she is committing a fraud against this Court, and that she is actually the actress “Vera Farmiga.” (Declaration of Heather Hamby, ¶¶ 5-6.)

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s, Elliott McKenzie. Motion to remove the person known as “Heather Hamby” from this case is DENIED. The Court SUSTAINS the objections to the photographs attached to Plaintiff’s motion.

Defendants to give notice