Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: BC574481, Date: 2023-03-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC574481 Hearing Date: March 13, 2023 Dept: 26
3/13/23:
Defendant/Judgment Debtor has identified two clerical errors in the Third
Amended Judgment that Plaintiff submitted and that the Court executed on or
about July 29, 2022. Both errors are contained in paragraph 9 of the
Third Amended Judgment, which provides, “For the reasons stated in the Court’s
October 15, 2022 Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees, Plaintiff, The 12 Tribes of
Israel, U.S.A., is awarded $127,9008.50, but that award is ordered to be paid
out of the damages judgment awarded to the Plaintiff in in this case.”
First, it is clear that the referenced order was actually dated October
15, 2019 -- not October 15, 2022 as stated in paragraph 9. Page 2,
line 1 of the Third Amended Judgment reflects the true and corrected date of
October 15, 2019. The docket in this action reflects that Judge Kendig
issued the order granting attorneys fees on October 15, 2019 -- not on October
15, 2022 order. Indeed, the Court signed the Third Amended Judgment on
July 29, 2022 --before the "October 15, 2022" date referenced in
paragraph 9.
In addition, Judge Kendig's October 15, 2019 minute order clearly reflects
an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $127,908.50 -- not the
unintelligible amount of "$127,9008.50" stated in paragraph 9 of the
Third Amended Judgment.
A court can correct clerical errors via a nunc pro tunc order. “[A]
trial court's authority to amend its judgment nunc pro tunc is limited to
correcting clerical errors in the judgment.” (Nellie Gail Ranch
Owners Assn. v. McMullin (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 982, 1009.)
“ ‘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.
[Citations.] 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.... “The function of a nunc pro tunc order is merely to correct the record
of the judgment and not to alter the judgment actually rendered—not to make an
order now for then, but to enter now for then an order previously made. The
question presented to the court on a hearing of a motion for a nunc pro tunc
order is: What order was in fact made at the time by the trial judge?” ’
[Citation.] ... [N]unc pro tunc orders may not be made to ‘make the judgment
express anything not embraced in the court's decision, even though the
proposed amendment contains matters which ought to have been so pronounced.
[Citations.]’ (Ibid.) (APRI Ins. Co. v. Superior Court
(1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 176, 185–186 [90 Cal.Rptr.2d 171, 177], as
modified (Nov. 18, 1999).)
The Court hereby gives notice to all parties that it is inclined to amend
nunc pro tunc the Third Amended Judgment filed on July 29, 2022 as
follows:
(1) the date "October 15, 2022" shall be amended nunc pro tunc to
read "October 15, 2019"; and
(2) the amount "$127,9008.50" shall be amended nunc pro tunc to
read "$127,908.50" consistent with Judge Holly Kendig's order.
Any party who opposes the Court making these amendments nunc pro tunc to the
Third Amended Judgment filed on July 29, 2022 (a) must file and serve written
objections no later than 10 am on March 15, 2023 and (b) must appear on March
16, 2023 at 8:30 am and show cause why the Court should not amend the Third
Amended Judgment nunc pro tunc.
The OSC for the sale of two properties located at 815 North La Brea Avenue,
Inglewood, CA 90302 ["La Brea Property"], and 5727 Chesley Avenue,
Los Angeles, CA 90043 ["Chesley Real Property"]. is continued to
March 15, 2023 at 8:30 am.
The Court's Judicial Assistant is to give electronic notice to all parties.