Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV17241, Date: 2024-07-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17241    Hearing Date: July 9, 2024    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Toyota Industries Commercial Finance, Inc.’s unopposed motion to amend the judgment entered on August 25, 2023, is granted.

          Plaintiff Toyota Industries Commercial Finance, Inc. (“Toyota”) (“Plaintiff”) moves unopposed for this Court to amend the judgment in this matter entered on August 25, 2023, against Defendants Kil H Choi aka Kil Han Choi and Air Boy Express, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) to remove the name of Air Boy Express, Inc., erroneously included in the Judgment as a Plaintiff on line 5.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 1; C.C.P. §473(d).)

Background

On August 25, 2023, the court granted Plaintiff’s default judgment against Defendants.  Plaintiff filed multiple default judgment packets to the Court, which necessitated this Court’s line edit to include the name of Air Boy Express, Inc. on the judgment listing Kil H Choi aka Kil Han Choi according to the one judgment rule.  However, this Court erroneously entered the name of Air Boy Express, Inc. as a Plaintiff instead of as a Defendant.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on March 13, 2024.  As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed.

Motion to Amend Judgment

Legal Standard

Once a judgment is entered, trial courts lose jurisdiction to set aside or amend the judgment except in accordance with statutory procedures.  (APRI

Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 176, 182; Rochin v. Pat

Johnson Manufacturing Co. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238).  However, “[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.” (C.C.P. §473(d).)

          Discussion

           Plaintiff’s motion to amend the clerical error in the judgment to remove the name of Air Boy Express, Inc. from line 5 as a Plaintiff and include the name of Air Boy Express, Inc. as a Defendant is granted.  Here, the Court made an error by placing the name of Air Boy Express, Inc. on the Judgment in the wrong location.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion is granted.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to amend the judgment to remove the clerical error listing Defendant Air Boy Express, Inc. as a Plaintiff and add the name Air Boy Express, Inc. as a Defendant is granted.  

Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:  July _____, 2024

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court