Bauer v. Likhterman

# Case Name Tentative

proposed order as it pertains to any collection efforts related to this court’s order of attorney fees and costs.

Moving Party shall provide notice of these rulings.

55.

56. Bauer v. The court orders the motion for charging order OFF Likhterman CALENDAR, as plaintiff has filed an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. (ROA 210). 2021- 01214086

57. Baah v. Plaintiff Alex Baah’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Monetary Inquisition “It is settled law that a motion for reconsideration is Group LLC ineffectual if it is filed after entry of judgment” and that Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 “applies only to applications 2024- for interim orders.” (Marshall v. Webster (2020) 54 01393282 Cal.App.5th 275, 281; see Branner v. Regents of University of California (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1048 [“A motion to reconsider is not valid if it is filed after the final judgment is signed”].) “The issue is jurisdictional.

Once the trial court has entered judgment, it is without power to grant reconsideration.” (APRI Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 176, 181; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 859, fn. 29 [“After entry of judgment, the superior court [does] not have jurisdiction to entertain or decide a motion for reconsideration”].)

Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.

58. Rogers v. The hearing on the claim of exemption by plaintiff / judgment Guzman debtor / claimant William Rogers and claimant Celestina M. ("Tina") Rogers, and the opposition by defendants / judgment 2023- creditors Angel Lupe Guzman and Arijet Corporation is 01301897 CONTINUED to August 10, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in Department C28.

First, there is no proof of service of defendants / judgment creditors’ Opposition to the Claim of Exemption (ROA 613). (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 703.550