Judge Mark A. Young, Case Number: 22SMCV02126, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV02126, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02126 Hearing Date: November 12, 2024 Dept: M

CASE NO.: 22SMCV02126

MOTION: Motion to Amend Judgment (CCP §187)

HEARING DATE: 11/12/2024

Legal Standard

“Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.”¿(Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo¿(1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 1484, 1489.) The trial court has the authority to control litigation before it in order to ensure the orderly administration of justice. (CCP §§ 128, 187;¿Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.¿(1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 967 [“It is also well established that courts have fundamental inherent equity, supervisory, and administrative powers, as well as inherent power to control litigation before them.”].) Code of Civil Procedure section 187 states in full:

When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff Stanley Wilson moves to amend the judgment entered in this action on February 15, 2024. As it stands, the judgment requires that the parties list the subject property for sale with “Jay Dharmasuriya of Realty Brokerage Group Inc.” as the broker. Plaintiff requests that the court instead nominate “Gerry Nicks of Keller Williams Realty” as the broker for the sale, because Defendants/Dharmasuriya have failed to comply with the judgment. Plaintiff cites no authorities which hold that a parties’ failure to comply with a judgment provides grounds to substantively amend the judgment. Plaintiff only cites the Court’s generic authority to use all means necessary to carry its orders into effect, or procedurally inapposite cases. (See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Weinberg, (2014) 227 Cal. App. 4th 1 [amendment to add alter ego JD]; Highland Springs Conf. & Training Ctr. v. City of Banning (2016) 244 Cal. App. 4th 267, 288 [same].) While the Court may have authority to add alter ego defendants, the proposed amendment does not seek to add any alter ego defendants. Instead, the proposed amendments substantively alter the stipulated judgment at issue. Such an amendment would exceed the Court’s authority. Instead, Plaintiff should seek to enforce the existing judgment using procedurally proper methods.

For these reasons, the motion is DENIED.