Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 18STLC09655, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR. 

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time. 

 **Please note we no longer use CourtCall** 

Case Number: 18STLC09655    Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    Dept: 26

Martin-Howard v. Tucker, et al.

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT


TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff Karin Martin-Howard’s Motion for Order Relief is DENIED.

 

 

ANALYSIS:

 

Plaintiff Karin Martin-Howard (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendants Kimberly Tucker and Byron Johnson (“Defendants”) on April 20, 2018. The Complaint alleged causes of action for slander/liber, civil harassment, exemplary damages, and actions by vexatious litigant. Default was entered as to Defendant Johnson on May 7, 2019 and as to Defendant Tucker on November 9, 2020.

 

Plaintiff’s request for default judgment was rejected on the grounds that the Complaint does not allege a specific amount of monetary damages and must be amended. (Notice of Rejection, 07/19/21.) Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order Relief on July 25, 2022. No opposition has been filed to date.

 

Discussion

 

It is not clear what Plaintiff’s Motion seeks. As far as the Court can discern, Plaintiff is asking the Court to enter judgment in her favor on the Complaint. However, Plaintiff has not corrected the defects noted in the Notice of Rejection of the Request for Default Judgment. No new amended Complaint has been filed or served to date. Additionally, entry of default and default judgment is to be made by written application. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subds. (b), (d); Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1800(a); LASC Rule 3.201(a).) Accordingly, the Court will not entertain a noticed hearing on default judgment in this action unless required by law.

 

Plaintiff Karin Martin-Howard’s Motion for Order Relief is DENIED.

 

 

Court clerk to give notice.