Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV14540, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV14540    Hearing Date: January 17, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

              Plaintiff Armando Flores moves the Court for an order amending the judgement in the underlying action entered on July 7, 2022.  Plaintiff claims that the true name of Defendant Giron M. Elena is Marco Elena.  Thus, Plaintiff requests that the judgment be amended to reflect the defendant’s true name.

            However, the Court finds that nothing in Plaintiff’s notice of motion, motion, nor memorandum of points and authorities provides any authority to establish that the Court is empowered to amend the judgment, as Plaintiff requests.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.110, subd. (a) [“A notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.”]; 3.1112, subd. (d)(3) [ a motion must “[b]riefly state the basis for the motion and the relief sought”]; Code Civ. Proc., § 1010 [“the notice of a motion…must state…the grounds upon which it will be made”].) 

            The Court therefore denies the motion as procedurally defective.