Department 58

Hearing Date: December 5, 2024

Case Name: Masihi v. Prexa Sant’e LLC

Case No.: 21STCV43632

Matter: Default Judgment prove-up

Moving Party: Plaintiff Aida Masihi

Responding Party: Unopposed

Tentative Ruling: The motion to amend the judgment is granted.

This is an action arising from a breach of a loan agreement. Plaintiff Aida Shahbandeh Masihi (Plaintiff) alleges that Defendants solicited a $400,000 loan from Plaintiff, representing that the funds would be used to develop a “proven cure” for Coronavirus/COVID-19 and that the loan would be repaid with interest (for a total $500,000) by a due date of April 1, 2021. Defendants never provided written loan documents and never repaid any of the funds, despite repeated promises.

On November 30, 2021, a Complaint was filed against Defendants Prexa Santé LLC, Infusion Pharmacy Network LLC, Integrative Wellness Network LLC, Stem Cell Therapeutics LA LLC, Robbin Messier, Matthew A. Bennett, and Christine Collins (Defendants). After filing a demurrer (which the Court overruled), Defendants Prexa Santé LLC, Infusion Pharmacy Network LLC, Integrative Wellness Network LLC, Stem Cell Therapeutics LA LLC (collectively, Companies), Robbin Messier, Matthew A. Bennett, Christine Collins filed an answer. Plaintiff then filed a motion to strike the answer of Stem Cell Therapeutics LA LLC. On April 27, 2023, the Court entered an order striking the Answer as to all Companies and entering their defaults.

On July 18, 2023, the Court entered Judgment against Defendants Companies, in the amount of $500,000, jointly and severally.

On July 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a FAC. The Court granted the motion. On August 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a FAC alleging claims for (1) breach of oral contract; (2) account stated; (3) open book account; (4) fraud and deceit, and (5.) money had and received. On October 2, 2023, default was entered as to Matthew A Bennet, MD and Robin Messier.

Plaintiff moved for default judgment against Defendants Matthew A Bennet, MD and Robin Messier. Defendant Christine Collins, MD had been dismissed. The request for entry of default judgment was denied.

Then, Plaintiff again moved for entry of default judgment against Defendants Matthew A Bennet, MD and Robin Messier. On January 4, 2024, entry of default judgment was granted.

Now, Plaintiff moves to amend the judgment nunc pro tunc. No opposition was filed.

The motion is granted.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to amend the judgment entered on January 4, 2024, to (1.) correct the spelling of Robbin Messier’s first name in the previously entered Judgments, which is misspelled as “Robin” instead of the proper spelling “Robbin” as reflected in the Complaint, Summons, and other documents on file with the Court; and (2.) include the additional spelling of Bennett’s first name “Matthew” so the Second Amended Judgment is against “Mathew A. Bennett, MD also known as Matthew A. Bennett, MD and “Robbin Messier” as reflected in the Proposed Second Amended Judgment lodged concurrently herewith.

It is elementary that “[a] court can always correct a clerical, as distinguished from a judicial error which appears on the face of a decree by a nunc pro tunc order. [Citation.] It cannot, however, change an order which has become final even though made in error, if in fact the order made was that intended to be made.” (Estate of Eckstrom (1960) 54 Cal.2d 540, 544.) In Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Corp. v. Western Pacific Roofing Corp. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 110, 117, the court elaborated on this point: “The test which distinguishes clerical error from possible judicial error is simply whether the challenged portion of the judgment was entered inadvertently (which is clerical error) versus advertently (which might be judicial error, but is not clerical error). [Citation.] Unless the challenged portion of the judgment was entered inadvertently, it cannot be changed post judgment under the guise of correction of clerical error.”

Here, the amendment address nothing more than a scrivener’s error – a mere typo. This is the type of clerical error that may be corrected on a motion to amend an order nunc pro tunc.

Conclusion

The motion to amend the judgment is granted.