Judge: Cynthia A Freeland, Case: 37-2015-00013000-CU-MC-NC, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 16, 2023

11/17/2023  01:30:00 PM  N-27 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Cynthia A. Freeland

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Misc Complaints - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2015-00013000-CU-MC-NC FLATTERS VS. LANGER [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 07/20/2023

Defendants Chris Langer and Potter Handy, LLP (collectively, 'Defendants')'s motion to amend judgment is granted.

California Code of Civil Procedure ('CCP') § 473(d) provides that '[t]he court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.' Cal. Code Civ. P. § 473(d). 'A clerical error results when the order or judgment misstates the court's actual intent (i.e., error in recording the judgment rendered), and judicial error results when the order or judgment entered was intended, even though based on an error of law (i.e., error in rendering the judgment).' Burch v. CertainTeed Corp. (2019) 34 Cal. App. 5th 341, 346.

The court construes Plaintiffs William F. Flatters, Dorothy J. Flatters, and Car Mel Enterprises, Inc.

(collectively, 'Plaintiffs')'s lack of opposition as a concession of the motion's merits. See San Diego Rules of Court, Rule 2.1.19.B. In addition, the uncontroverted evidence establishes that on April 20, 2015, Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a Complaint against Defendants for malicious prosecution. See ROA No. 1. The case was tried on April 18, 2016 before the Honorable Timothy M.

Casserly. On May 9, 2016, the court entered a Judgment After Court Trial (the 'Judgment') in Defendants' favor in the amount of $2,527.61. See ROA No. 38; Johnson Decl., Ex. 2. However, the Judgment identifies only Car Mel Enterprises, Inc. as a plaintiff. All three plaintiffs should have been listed as plaintiffs on Page 1, ¶ 3(b) of the Judgment. The foregoing constitutes a clerical error that must be corrected under CCP § 473(d).

In light of the foregoing, the court grants the motion and amends Page 1, ¶ 3(b) of the Judgment to reflect that judgment shall be entered in Defendants' favor and against all named plaintiffs: William F.

Flatters, Dorothy J. Flatters, and Car Mel Enterprises, Inc.

This is the tentative ruling for the hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, November 17, 2023. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of November 17, 2023.

If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2998511