MILLER, ET AL. v. NEWREZ LLC

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR JULY 24, 2026

1. MILLER, ET AL. v. NEWREZ LLC, 25CV2192

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel

Plaintiffs Alexander Miller and Edward Healey (collectively, “plaintiffs”), who are

both proceeding in pro per, seek to compel defendant Renovo Financial, LLC’s

(“defendant”) verified responses to plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Request for

Production, and Request for Admission, all Set One. Plaintiffs’ motion also includes a

request for monetary sanctions.

Plaintiffs’ discovery requests were directed to the named defendant, Renovo Financial, LLC. However, defendant’s opposition states that Renovo Financial, LLC is a

misnomer; no such entity actually exists. Notably, defendant acknowledges it is the

party intended to be charged. What is concerning is that in its responsive pleading, filed

December 9, 2025, defendant identified itself as Renovo Financial, LLC, without

mentioning that the name plaintiffs used in their complaint was incorrect. And,

defendant continues to identify as Renovo Financial, LLC — even in its opposition to the

instant motion — which is misleading to both plaintiffs and the court. A defendant must

exercise care when responding. A California defendant sued under an incorrect name

should file a responsive pleading using their correct legal name followed by the phrase

"erroneously sued as [name used by plaintiff]," answer the substantive allegations of

the complaint, and, if necessary, seek or prompt an amendment to the complaint to

correct the misnomer. The court orders defendant to file and serve a notice of misnomer, identifying its

correct name, no later than August 7, 2026.

Under the circumstances, the court finds it appropriate to deny plaintiffs’ motion to

compel without prejudice. Plaintiffs’ moving papers acknowledge defendant informed

plaintiffs of the misnomer. Additionally, plaintiffs acknowledged the misnomer issue in