Motion for an Order to Amend the Judgment
(Compton Courthouse: Dept. E) August 14, 2026 DEPARTMENT E LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT KENNETH DAVIS, Plaintiff, vs. ROBERT & ODELIA MATHIS TRUST, ET AL., Defendants. |))))))))) | CASE NO: 19STCV29130 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT DATE: August 14, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M. DEPT.: E | Moving Party: Plaintiff Kenneth Davis Responding Party: None Notice: Ok SHAPE * MERGEFORMAT Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SHAPE * MERGEFORMAT I. BACKGROUND
This is a negligence and intentional tort action. Plaintiff Kenneth Davis alleges that, after he filed a complaint with the Housing Authority regarding hazardous and dangerous conditions at 1107 Avalon Boulevard, Los Angeles 90003 (the "Premises"), Defendants disregarded the Housing Authority's orders and instead retaliated and assaulted Plaintiff, causing severe physical and emotional damage and property loss.
On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff Kenneth Davis filed his initial Complaint against Robert & Odell Matthis Trust, Ivy Gailes, and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1) General Negligence; (2) Intentional Tort; (3) Products Liability; and (4) Premises Liability.
Davis filed his then-operative First Amended Complaint (the "FAC") on January 21, 2020 against Defendants Robert & Odell Matthis Trust, Marvella Matthis Trust, Ivy Gailes, and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1) Negligence; and (2) Intentional Tort.
On December 21, 2022, the Court entered default judgment against "Marvella Matthis Trust" in the total amount of $500,823.00 (the "2022 Judgment"). (See Judgment, 12/21/22.)
And on August 2, 2023, the Court issued an Abstract of Judgment identifying the Judgment debtor as "Marvella Matthis Trust." (See Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims, 8/2/23.)
On July 17, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for an Order to Amend the Judgment.
As of August 13, 2026, no opposition or reply have been filed. Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1005(b), all papers opposing a noticed motion must be filed with the court and served on all other parties "at least nine court days ... before the hearing" and all reply papers at least five court days before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1005(b).)
Accordingly, any opposition or reply papers now filed are untimely, and the Court exercises its discretion to refuse to consider untimely filed papers. (Cal. R. Ct., Rule 3.1300(d); Mackey v. Bd. of Trustees of California State Univ. (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 640, 657
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
II. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standard
"When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 187.)
"The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.473(a)(1).)
B.
Discussion
Plaintiff asserts that, after entry of the 2022 Judgment, the judgment debtor has changed its name to "Benita F. Matthis, Successor Trustee of the Matthis Family, dated August 8, 2000" and therefore moves the Court for an order amending the 2022 Judgment to reflect the judgment debtor's current legal name.
Plaintiff argues that on May 10, 2021 Marvell Matthis, Trustee of the Matthis Family Trust which owned the Premises where the events alleged in his then operative FAC occurred, was personally served with the Summons and FAC in this matter. (Nehoray Decl., P. 3, Exh. 1.)
In Plaintiff's formulation of events, the judgment submitted to the Court contained a clerical error naming "Marvella Matthis Trust" as the debtor and the 2022 Judgment was later entered against judgment debtor " Marvella Matthis Trust" "through clerical mistake." (Id., P.P. 4-5, Exh. 2.)
Plaintiff contends that he later "was able to obtain a Court Order by the probate court which confirmed that the [Premises] did in fact belong to the "Matthis Family Trust" through Marvella Matthis as its Trustee. (Id., P. 6, Exh. 3.)
On October 31, 2023, after entry of the 2022 Judgment, Plaintiff attests that the successor trustee of the MatthIs Family Trust executed a Grant Deed changing the manner in which title to the Premises was held to "Benita F. Matthis, Successor Trustee of the Matthis Family Trust, dated August 9, 2000." (Id., P. 7, Exh. 4.)
Plaintiff now seeks to amend the 2022 Judgment to reflect "Benita F. Matthis, Successor Trustee of the Matthis Family Trust, dated August 9, 2000" as the judgment debtor. (Id., P. 8.)
Without more information, the Court does not find Plaintiff's arguments persuasive.
At no point prior to the current motion (and its predecessor ex-parte application) did the name "Matthis Family Trust" appear in the Court's record.
The FAC names the "Marvella Matthis Trust" as a Defendant. (See First Amended Complaint, 1/21/20, pp. 1, 2 P. 5.)
Marvella Matthis was indeed personally served with the FAC in this matter, but Marvella Matthis was served on behalf of the Marvella Matthis Trust. (See Proof of Service of Summons, 9/10/21.)
The Marvella Matthis Trust was defaulted. (See Request for Entry of Default, 2/25/22.)
And a default judgment was entered against the Marvella Matthis Trust. (See Judgment, 12/21/22.)
Plaintiff presents no evidence that the "Marvella Matthis Trust" is the same entity as the "Matthis Family Trust" which Plaintiff seeks to substitute as a judgment debtor.
The Probate Court Order submitted with Plaintiff's moving papers simply establishes that the Premises was confirmed as property of the Matthis Family Trust as of September 4, 2015. (See Nehoray Decl., Exh. 3.)
The Probate Court Order does not equate the "Marvella Matthis Trust" with the "Matthis Family Trust."
And the 2023 Grant Deed submitted with Plaintiff's moving papers confirms that, as of November 27, 2023, title to the Premises was transferred to "Benita F. Matthis, Successor Trustee of the Matthis Family Trust, dated August 9, 2000." (See Nehoray Decl., Exh. 4.)
As with the Probate Court Order, the 2023 Grant Deed does not equate the "Marvella Matthis Trust" with the "Matthis Family Trust."
In short, including the questions as to whether the Court may amend a final judgment in this specific circumstance, Plaintiff has submitted no evidence and/or legal argument addressing:
1. Why and how the "Marvella Matthis Trust" is the same as the "Matthis Family Trust" such that the Court might consider the entities the same;
2. Why and how, if the Court were to consider the "Marvella Mathis Trust" the same as the "Matthis Family Trust," the "Matthis Family Trust" is the same as the "the Matthis Family Trust, dated August 9, 2000" (the ultimate entity Plaintiff seeks to add as the judgment debtor);
3. Whether, given that a judgment entered against a trust without naming the trustee is void, the Court may amend the instant judgment years after final entry (See Jo Redland Tr., U.A.D. 4-5-05 v. CIT Bank, N.A. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 142 (Permitting amendment prior to entry of judgment to allow trustee to be named rather than trust); see also Portico Mgmt. Grp., LLC v. Harrison (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 464 (In the context of a judgment confirming an arbitration award, holding it was error to attempt to correct judgment naming trust rather than trustee after judgment had become final)); and
4. How naming, serving and defaulting a differently named trust constitutes a clerical error that might be addressed via Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 187 versus a substantive error which may not be addressed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 187 (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 187; Hamilton v. Laine (1987) 57 Cal.App.4th 885 (Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 187 may not be used as a vehicle to review an order for legal or judicial error by "correcting" order in order to enter a new order)).
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff may re-file the motion, addressing the specific questions noted above. | Home -->)" -->