Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 19STLC05060, Date: 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.  **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**

Case Number: 19STLC05060     Hearing Date: October 3, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR IN JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff G&B Law, LLC

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR IN JUDGMENT

(CCP § 473(d))

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff G&B Law, LLC’s Motion for Order to Correct Clerical Error in Judgment is CONTINUED to NOVEMBER 7, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve supplemental papers addressing the issues discussed herein on the opposing party at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing and file it with the Court at least 5 court days before the next scheduled hearing.  Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     OK

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of September 28, 2022                      [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of September 28, 2022                      [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On May 24, 2019, Plaintiff G&B Law, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Trevor A. Lawrence, dba Blue Palm Studios and Blue Palm Digital (“Defendant” or “Lawrence”), for 1) breach of written contract, 2) common count, 3) account stated, 4) open book account arising out of an attorney-client retainer agreement.

On July 1, 2020, pursuant to the request of the Plaintiff, the Court entered default against Defendant.  (7-1-20 Request for Default.)  On November 10, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Request for Default Judgment and Judgment was entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant for $21,634.08.  (11-10-20 Default Judgment.)

            On July 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order to Correct Clerical Error in Judgment and Amend Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc (the “Motion”).

            No opposition has been filed.

II.              Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 473(d) provides that, “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.”  A court has the inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records so as to make these records reflect the true facts.  (In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 702, 705.)  “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).  Unless the challenged portion of the judgment was entered inadvertently, it cannot be changed post judgment under the guise of correction of clerical error.”  Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Corp. v. Western Pacific Roofing Corp. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 110, 117 (internal citation omitted).  “An amendment that substantially modifies the original judgment or materially alters the rights of the parties, may not be made by the court under its authority to correct clerical error, therefore, unless the record clearly demonstrates that the error was not the result of the exercise of judicial discretion.”  (In re Candelario, 3 Cal. 3d. at 705.)

III.            Discussion

Here, Plaintiff seeks to amend a portion of the judgment which inadvertently omitted Defendant’s middle initial.  (Mot. p. 2.)  Plaintiff states that it “only seeks to correct the name of the judgment debtor and does not seek to add a new party to the judgment.”  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff argues that this is clearly a clerical error and resulted from counsel inadvertently omitting Defendant’s middle initial when “recording the terms of a court-ordered judgment.”  (Ibid. at p. 4.)  Furthermore, § 473(d) does not prescribe a time limit within which a motion to correct a clerical error can be brought.

The Court finds that the omission of Defendant’s name in the judgment is a clerical error, and the action was brought against “Trevor A. Lawrence.”  (See Compl.)  The Court is inclined to grant Plaintiff’s Motion.

However, the Court notes that Plaintiff has served and filed a defective Notice of Motion that does not state the name of the courthouse or the address where the hearing on the Motion will take place.  It also incorrectly states that the case is an unlimited civil case and that the presiding judge is Honorable James E. Blancarte.  (Mot. p. 1.)  The instant case is a limited civil case assigned to the Honorable Judge Katherine Chilton at Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse, located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

The Court CONTINUES the hearing and orders Plaintiff to correct the Notice of Hearing, serve it on Defendant at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, and file it with the Court at least 5 court days before the next scheduled hearing.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Plaintiff G&B Law, LLC’s Motion for Order to Correct Clerical Error in Judgment is CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 7, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve supplemental papers addressing the issues discussed herein on the opposing party at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing and file it with the Court at least 5 court days before the next scheduled hearing.  Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.