Re: Judgment: Straightening Out The Defendant's Names/Akas (

More | Report Post

On 10/26/05, TT wrote:
> Sorry for such a long post. I broke it up as much as
> possible for easier reading and ability to skip over what
> may not be relevant to you.
>
> My now former attorney screwed up just about everthing on
> this Intentional PI/Tort Case.
>
> A Judgment was entered naming the defendant incorrectly.
> I'm looking for the correct procedure, or if you cannot
> say, at least some assistance to send me on my way to
> research it myself (in pro per). *Spoke to the Court Clerk,
> Court Assistant and the Default Clerk. No assistance.
>
> I am still pursuing whether the Default can be reheard due
> to the insufficient evidence equaling inadequate damages
> whereas the Award may reflect the merits of the case vs the
> attorneys negligence.
>
> There is ONE remaining defendant who's Answer was striken
> at the trial date. They have never participated in the case
> otherwise.
>
> There was NO Statement of Damages [982(a)(24)], NO Judgment
> [JUD-100] and NO Notice of Entry of Judgment filed by the
> former attorney before/after the Judgment was entered.
>
> HISTORY
> Problems with Defendants Names/Akas & the Judgment (alias'
> used):
>
> CASE TITLE:
> Sue White-Black
>
> REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT:
> Sue White-Black
>
> DEFAULT PROVE UP ATTNY DECL:
> Sue White
> aka Sue Kim White,
> Sue K. White,
> Sue White-Black,
> Sue Red,
> Sue K. White dba The Nut House,
> Sue Karen White
>
> PLAINTIFF TESTIMONY:
> Sue Karen White,
> aka Sue Black,
> aka Sue Red,
> aka Sue White, Individually, dba The Nut House
>
> PROPOSED JUDGMENT (Judgment Entered):
> Sue White-Blok (see spelling)
>
> AMENDED PROPOSED JUDGMENT (Amended Judgment Entered):
> Sue White-Blok
> aka Sue D. White
> aka Sue Black
>
> 2ND AMENDED PROPOSED JUDGMENT (by PL in Pro Per)-DENIED:
> Sue Karen White,
> aka Sue Black,
> aka Sue Red,
> aka Sue White, Individually, dba The Nut House
>
> Minute Order excerpt (from denied amendment):
> "The court finds the names as cited in the amendments to
> the complaint were not named in the request for default..."
> NOR WAS THE NAME ENTERED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT
>
> "nor were they addressed at prove up hearing and..."
> ALL NAMES WERE ADDRESSED AT THE PROVE UP IN DECL OR
> TESTIMONY (except Sue White-Blok)
>
> "judgment was not entered against them in either the
> judgment..."
> JUDGMENT ENTERED BY A NAME NEVER LISTED AT ANYTIME IN THE
> CASE (No such name)
>
> "or first amended judgment."
> ALSO INCLUDES SAME NAME NEVER LISTED ANYTIME IN CASE (No
> such name) and two that were but still incomplete.
>
> *The CORRECT names for Judgment/Collection are as denoted
> above "PL Testimony" & "2nd Amended Proposed Judgment"
> which were correctly amended to the complaint by the PL
> while represented, not by the attorney.
>
> *There is NO such name as Sue White-Black or Sue White-Blok.
> *There is a Sue White aka Sue Black aka Sue Red.
>
> To collect the Judgment from ALL assets, I need to have the
> names listed correctly as was in PL Testimony and/or 2nd
> Amended Judgment.
>
> The correct names may all be in the case and named
> somewhere for the judgment, but it's all such a mess, if
> it's a judicial error, I can completly understand the
> Judge's confusion if that is the problem.
>
> What I don't understand, is how to figure out how I fix
> this. An Ex Parte to ?... A Motion to ?... A Nunc Pro
> Tunc ?... All these I've discussed briefly with others, but
> I am still the layperson.
>
> Hopefully this may make some sense to someone on the board.
> It sounds complicated in writing, it really isn't...
>
> I just don't know what I'm to write, including the correct
> way to write the content on this one. I've done pleadings
> before, but this one, I'm lost right now.
>
> Thanks to all!
Huh?