Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22STCP04104, Date: 2025-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP04104    Hearing Date: June 10, 2025    Dept: 45

IN THE MATTER OF: CATHERINE ELIZABETH MORGAN, ET AL.

motion to set aside and vacate decree changing name entered on january 23, 2023 based on extrinsic fraud

Date of Hearing:        June 10, 2025                                     Trial Date:       None set  

Department:              45                                                        Case No.:        22STCP04104

Moving Party:            Non-Party Chen Han

Responding Party:     No opposition.

BACKGROUND

On November 16, 2022, Catherine Elizabeth Morgan filed a Petition for Change of Name for Neo Han and Winston Han.

[Tentative] Ruling

Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Decree Changing Name Entered on January 23, 2023 Based on Extrinsic Fraud is GRANTED

DISCUSSION

Chen Han, father of the Minor Children in this action, moves the court for an order setting aside and vacating the Decree Changing Name entered on January 23, 2023. Chen Han makes the motion on the grounds of extrinsic fraud in that notice was not provided to Chen Han in the manner prescribed by law and as a result, he was prevented from participating in this proceeding.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d) provides that the “court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.”  

Chen argues Catherine did not provide notice to him and as a result, Catherine fraudulently prevented him from participating in this proceeding and had he known of this proceeding, Chen would have objected to the children’s names being changed. Specifically, Counsel for Catherine falsely states in the Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt that Chen signed the receipt. (Chen Decl. ¶5.) Chen asserts he never received the Petition and the related documents nor did he sign the Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt. (Chen Decl. ¶5.) Chen did not discover the name change until an acquaintance informed him that Catherine moved to Los Angeles, California taking their children with her causing Chen to conduct a Google search and discover the existence of the name change case. (Chen Decl. ¶6.) Chen also discovered Catherine obtained a marital dissolution judgment issued by the Los Angeles Superior Court, which awarded her sole legal and physical custody of the children. (Chen Decl. ¶8.) Chen also claims he never signed the Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt for that petition either. (Chen Decl. ¶8.) Moreover, Chen and Catherine were actually never married. (Chen Decl. ¶15.)

The court sets aside the Decree Changing Name granted on November 16, 2022. Chen has presented evidence he was not aware of the Petition for Change of Name and did not sign the Notices and Acknowledgment of Receipt in either the instant action or the marital dissolution. The motion is unopposed.