Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV01214, Date: 2024-03-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23BBCV01214 Hearing Date: March 8, 2024 Dept: NCB
North Central District
BLUE BRIDGE FINANCIAL, LLC, Plaintiff, v.
BORLAR, INC., et al., Defendants. |
Case No.: 23BBCV01214 Hearing Date: March 8, 2024 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC
|
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Blue Bridge Financial, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Alliance Funding Group (“Alliance”) entered into written Equipment Finance Agreement Nos. 140197, 144935, and 145073 with Defendant Boarlar, Inc. (“Borlar”) to finance certain equipment from a vendor. Plaitniff alleges that it remains the holder of the agreements and that Borlar defaulted on the agreements. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Oleg Paul Mossounov (“Mossounov”) guaranteed each of the agreements.
The complaint, filed May 31, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of guaranty; (3) money lent; (4) recovery of real property – claim and delivery; (5) breach of contract; (6) breach of guaranty; (7) money lent; (8) recovery of real property; (9) breach of contract; (10) breach of guaranty; (11) money lent; (12) recovery of real property – claim and delivery.
On August 23, 2023, Does 1 through 20 only were dismissed from the action without prejudice.
On August 23, 2023, the default of Defendants was entered.
On September 12, 2023, the default judgment of Defendants was entered in the amount of $228,488.56.
On December 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the judgment nunc pro tunc.
The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.
LEGAL STANDARD
CCP § 128(a)(8) states:
(a) Every court shall have the power to do all of the following:
…
(8) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice.
(CCP § 128(a)(8).)
CCP § 187 states: “When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this code.” Section 187 is an equitable procedure to amend judgments. (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Weinberg (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) CCP § 187 grants the Court the power to use all means to carry its jurisdiction into effect.
CCP § 473 states in relevant part:
(a)(1) The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.
…
(d) The 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.
(CCP § 473.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff moves to amend the default judgment entered in this action on September 12, 2023. Plaintiff argues that the judgment is incomplete because the default judgment form inadvertently omitted to provide attachment 7.
In section 7 of the Default Judgment (Form JUD-100), it states: “¿ Other (specify): Plaintiff shall recover from Defendants named in item 5a above the possession of the collateral listed in attachment 7. Upon recovery and sale of such collateral, Plaintiff shall apply the net proceeds of such sale to the judgment set forth in item 6.1.(6) above.” No Attachment 7 is included with the default judgment.
Plaintiff’s counsel Martin Hoffmann states that his office submitted a request for entry of default judgment on August 23, 2023, but that the Attachment 7 was not submitted with the judgment papers. (Hoffmann Decl., ¶5.) He states that his office did not realize the mistake until after the judgment was entered. (Id., ¶7.) He states that he reviewed the office’s file and noticed that Attachment 7 was prepared, but when the request for entry of default judgment was submitted for filing with the Court, the attachment was not included by mistake. (Id., ¶8.) A copy of the amended default judgment with Attachment 7 is included as Exhibit A to Mr. Hoffmann’s declaration.
The Court grants the motion to amend the default judgment to include Attachment 7. Plaintiff should submit an amended default judgment, form JUD-100 for the Court’s signing with the proposed Attachment 7 document.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s motion to amend/correct the judgment is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to electronically lodge a copy of the proposed amended default judgment (Form JUD-100) consistent with the Order of the Court following the hearing on this matter for the Court’s signing.