Judge Katherine Chilton, Case LAM15K02819 2022-12-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: LAM15K02819, Date: 2022-12-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: LAM15K02819 Hearing Date: December 22, 2022 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jose Estrada

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT

(CCP § 187)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Jose Estrada’s Motion to Amend Judgment is GRANTED. Judgment, entered on November 14, 2017, is hereby amended to include $2,000.00 in damages, $13,185.00 in attorney’s fees, and $470.00 in costs.

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 December 20, 2022 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of December 20, 2022 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On March 4, 2015, Plaintiff Jose Estrada (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant 1580 Centinela Associates, LLC (“Defendant”) for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

On December 9, 2015, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request, the Court entered default against Defendant. (12-9-15 Request for Default.) On January 5, 2016, pursuant to Stipulation of the parties to set aside default, the Court set aside the default entered against Defendant. (1-5-16 Motion.) On March 28, 2016, Defendant filed an Answer.

On November 13, 2017, following a Non-Jury Trial, the Court ordered judgment to be entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant for $2,000.00 in damages and attorney’s fees and costs to be determined by a separate motion. (11-13-17 Minute Order.) Judgment was entered on November 14, 2017. (11-14-17 Judgment.) On February 1, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees in the amount of $13,185.00. (2-1-18 Minute Order.) The Order awarding attorney’s fees was signed on February 21, 2018. (2-21-18 Order.)

On November 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs.

On October 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Amend Judgment (“Motion”). No opposition has been filed.

II. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 187 states: “[w]hen 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 contemplates amending a judgment by noticed motion. [Citations.] The court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion to amend a judgment, but may rule on the motion based solely on declarations and other written evidence. [Citation.]” (Highland Springs Conference & Training Center v. City of Banning (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 267, 280.) “In the interests of justice, the ‘‘‘greatest liberality is to be encouraged’’’ in the allowance of amendments brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 187. [Citation.]” (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Weinberg (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1, 7.)

In addition, Code of Civil Procedure § 473(d), provides that a court may correct clerical judgments to conform to the judgment directed.

III. Discussion

Plaintiff seeks to amend the Judgment entered in his favor and against Defendant to reflect $2,000.00 in damages, $13,185.00 in attorney’s fees, and $470.00 in costs. (Mot. p. 1.) Plaintiff argues that “[t]he motion is required because the original judgment entered on November 13, 2017 does not reflect the attorney fees and costs awarded to Plaintiff.” (Ibid.) The Court notes that it ordered judgment to be entered on November 13, 2017, and Judgment was entered on November 14, 2017. (11-13-17 Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial); 11-14-17 Judgment.)

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees was granted on February 1, 2018, and the Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees was entered on February 21, 2018. (2-1-18 Minute Order; 2-21-18 Order.)

Finally, on November 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs, which “was never challenged, stricken, or taxed” and thus, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 685.090, the costs are part of the judgment. (Mot. p. 3; 11-15-17 Memorandum.) Plaintiff has filed a Proposed Judgment with the instant Motion.

Defendant has not opposed the Motion.

The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to $2,000 in damages, as judgment was entered on November 14, 2017. (11-14-17 Judgment.) The Court also granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees in the amount of $13,185.00. (2-1-18 Minute Order; 2-21-18 Order.)

Moreover, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs on November 15, 2017. According to Code of Civil Procedure § 685.090(a), “[c]osts are added to and become a part of the judgment (1) [i]f a memorandum of costs is filed pursuant to Section 685.070 and no motion to tax is made, upon the expiration of the time for making the motion.” Section 685.070(c) sets out that the judgment debtor may file a noticed motion to tax the costs within 10 days after being served with the memorandum of costs and if no motion is filed, “[t]he court shall make an order allowing or disallowing the costs to the extent justified under the circumstances of the case.” Here, the Memorandum of Costs was served on November 15, 2017, and Defendant did not file a motion to strike or tax costs. (11-15-17 Memorandum, p. 2.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to the amount of attorney’s fees and costs requested. Furthermore, the Court has the authority to amend the judgment to include the attorney’s fees and costs.

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Judgment is GRANTED, and Judgment is amended to include damages of $2,000.00, attorney’s fees of $13,185.00, and costs of $470.00.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Moving party is ordered to give notice.