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

More | Report Post

Why don't you just break down and hire an attorney instead of
being a cheapass- a rather obnoxious and ignorant one at
that.

>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).
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!