Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 19STLC05060, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STLC05060     Hearing Date: November 7, 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 GRANTED.  Defendant’s name on the Judgment is AMENDED, nunc pro tunc, to “Trevor A. Lawrence.”

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 November 2, 2022                        [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of November 2, 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, and 4) open book account arising out of an attorney-client retainer agreement.

On July 1, 2020, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request, 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 (“Motion”).

            On October 3, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to file and serve a corrected Notice of Motion.  (10-3-22 Minute Order.)

            On October 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amended Notice of Motion, Motion, and Declaration of Benjamin S. Seigel

            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.

On October 3, 2022, the Court found that the omission of Defendant’s name in the judgment is a clerical error, and the action was initially brought against “Trevor A. Lawrence.”  (10-3-22 Minute Order; See Compl.)  However, the Court noted that Plaintiff had served and filed a defective Notice of Motion that did not state the name of the courthouse or the address where the hearing on the Motion would take place and contained other errors.  (10-3-22 Minute Order.)  Thus, the hearing on the Motion was continued to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to serve and file a corrected Notice of Motion.  (Ibid.)

On October 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amended Notice and Motion, as well as Declaration of Benjamin S. Seigel.  The Notice has been corrected and contains the proper time, date, and location of the hearing and name of judicial officer, in compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(b).  Amended moving papers were served on Defendant by mail on October 6, 2022.  (Amended Mot. p. 43.)

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct Clerical Error in Judgment.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Plaintiff G&B Law, LLC’s Motion for Order to Correct Clerical Error in Judgment is GRANTED.  Defendant’s name on the judgment is AMENDED, nunc pro tunc, to “Trevor A. Lawrence.”

Moving party is ordered to give notice.