Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCP00526, Date: 2024-05-15 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 23PSCP00526    Hearing Date: May 15, 2024    Dept: G

Defendant Statney Lattin Jr.’s Motion to Vacate Judgment on Sister-State Judgment

Respondent: Plaintiff Grand Capital

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Statney Lattin Jr.’s Motion to Vacate Judgment on Sister-State Judgment is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On December 4, 2023, Plaintiff Grand Capital filed an application for entry of judgment on sister-state judgment against Defendants People Onesource Inc. (People Onesource), Convenant Industries, Inc. (Convenant Industries), and Statney Lattin Jr. Grand Capital’s application is based on a judgment by confession entered by the New York Supreme Court against People Onesource, Convenant Industries, and Lattin in April 2017.

On February 23, 2024, Lattin filed the present motion. A hearing on the present motion is set for May 15, 2024.

ANALYSIS

Lattin moves to vacate the entry of the New York Supreme Court’s judgment by confession. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Lattin’s motion without prejudice.

Rule 3.1112, subdivision (a) of the California Rules of Court requires a motion to include (1) a notice of hearing, (2) the motion, and (3) a supporting memorandum. If a party fails to include a supporting memorandum, “[t]he court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion or special demurrer is not meritorious and cause for its denial and, in the case of a demurrer, as a waiver of all grounds not supported.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113, subd. (a).)

In this case, while Lattin filed a notice of motion, Lattin failed to include any memorandum in support of Lattin’s motion. Because a memorandum was required as this motion is not exempt pursuant to Rule 3.1114, subdivision (a) of the California Rules of Court, the Court finds Lattin’s motion is without merit.

Accordingly, Lattin’s motion is DENIED without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Lattin’s motion to vacate the sister-state judgment is DENIED without prejudice.