Judge: Robert P. Dahlquist, Case: 37-2021-00011662-CU-CO-NC, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 22, 2024

02/23/2024  01:30:00 PM  N-29 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert P Dahlquist

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Contract - Other Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2021-00011662-CU-CO-NC COLCHESTER BRANDS LLC VS PIFER [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Strike, 01/17/2024

Judgment debtors Gary Pifer and Historix, LLC's motion to strike (ROA #213) and motion to vacate judgment (ROA # 214) are denied.

To the extent that the motions seek relief on behalf of Historix, LLC, the motions are denied because Historix, LLC is a limited liability company, and must be represented by an attorney in order to participate in legal proceedings. Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 1094, 1101.

In addition, the motions are denied for failure to comply with the California Rules of Court. For example, Rule 3.112 requires a motion to be supported by: (1) a notice of motion; (2) the motion itself; and (3) a memorandum in support of the motion. The notice of motion 'must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.' Rule 3.110. This rule is important because it enables the court to determine the exact relief being sought and the legal basis for the requested relief.

Here, the motions do not identify the legal basis for the relief being sought, other than referring to a claimed 'fraud upon the court.' One motion refers to 'Rule 60,' which appears to be a reference to a federal rule which is not applicable to the proceedings in this court. (ROA # 214, at page 1) No state statutes or cases are cited as the legal basis for the requested relief. Under these circumstances, the court is unable to discern the legal basis for the requested relief. The court is not required to develop arguments or provide legal authorities for a party requesting relief. The party requesting relief bears the burden of showing a legal basis for the requested relief.

In any event, the court is not persuaded on this limited evidentiary record that a fraud was perpetrated on the court.

The request for monetary sanctions is denied.

This minute order constitutes the court's order. No party is required to submit a proposed order after hearing.

This is the tentative ruling for an appearance hearing (in person or remote) at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, February 23, 2024. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of February 23, 2024. If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3078626 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  COLCHESTER BRANDS LLC VS PIFER [IMAGED]  37-2021-00011662-CU-CO-NC their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3078626