Judge Kevin C. Brazile, Case Number: 20STCV43794, Date: 2025-04-10 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULINGS

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE, DEPARTMENT 20 - JUDGE KEVIN C. BRAZILE

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling without appearing at the hearing by emailing Dept. 20 as soon as possible after reviewing a posted tentative. Though the Court makes every effort to post tentatives at least a day ahead of the hearing, this cannot be guaranteed due to the volume of motions. The email address is smcdept20@lacourt.org. In the subject line include:

1) The name and number of the case;
2) The word "SUBMITTING" or “NOT SUBMITTING” in all caps; and
3) The date of hearing.

In the body of the email include your name, contact information, and the party you represent (i.e. Defendant/moving party; Plaintiff/opposing party). Include all other parties on the email by "cc". Do not include any comments, questions or other information on your email.

PLEASE DO NOT call the court to submit on the tentative or to confirm receipt of your email. If you follow the instructions above, you will receive an automatic reply to your email confirming receipt of your email. If all parties submit, the tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date, the court will sign applicable orders/judgments, if any, and the final ruling will be posted online with the minute order. The moving party shall give notice of the final ruling.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify the other side by email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion.

Tentative rulings are not invitations nor opportunities, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

_________________________ * ______________________________

RULES ON USING EMAIL THE COURT

No ex-parte communications via email. Always copy all parties in all emails to Court.

Do not use email to file documents in Court. All documents must be filed in the Clerk’s office. Emails are not part of the official Court record. Do not use the email for any other purpose other than submitting/not submitting on tentative rulings or as ordered by the Court. Do not "cc" the Court on emails among the attorneys, parties or others. Do not use the email to ask questions regarding a case. For frequently asked questions go to the Court Information for Department 20 at www.lacourt.org.
The Court will not respond to inappropriate emails.

WARNING: Inappropriate use or misuse of the Court’s email or violation of these or other rules may result in sanctions, including blocking receipt of emails by that sender, after the first misuse/violation.

Ruling: Defendant Dangoor’s Motion to Vacate or Modify Judgment is GRANTED as to the request to modify and DENIED as to the request to vacate. The Court exercises its inherent power to correct clerical errors. The January 10, 2025 judgment is corrected to reflect a judgment of $8,500 after application of a $10,000 credit for the settlement with Iman Eshaghyan, Mina Eshaghyan, Re Broker Group, Inc., Re eBroker Group Inc., Coldwell Banker Realty.

On October 15, 2021, Plaintiff Rafie Rafiee filed the Second Amended Complaint against Defendants Daniel Dangoor, Iman Eshaghyan, Mina Eshaghyan, Re Broker Group, Inc., Re eBroker Group Inc., Coldwell Banker Realty, Golcheh Family Trust Dated August 3, 2016 (“Trust), Morad Golcheh, and Nahid Golcheh for (1) intentional misrepresentation; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) conversion; (5) violation of the UCL; (6) breach of contract; (7) breach of implied contract; and (8) violation of Penal Code §496.

Plaintiff alleges that when he purchased certain real property, Defendants promised to pay for and provide certain furniture, which Plaintiff never received. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants promised that Plaintiff could have his cabinets stained for only $2,000 when they knew or should have known the real cost was about $10,000.

On December 19, 2023, the Court granted the summary judgment motion of Defendants Morad Golcheh and Nahid Golcheh.

On March 5, 2024, the Court found Plaintiff’s settlement with Defendants Iman Eshaghyan, Mina Eshaghyan, Coldwell Banker Realty, REeBroker Group, Inc. and RE Broker Group, Inc. (“Settling Defendants”) in good faith. On April 30, 2024, the Court entered an order granting Settling Defendants’ Application for Good Faith Settlement Determination. On May 29, 2024 and June 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a dismissal of the action as to Settling Defendants.

Defendant Dangoor was the only remaining Defendant after the Court granted the Application for Good Faith Settlement Determination. After court trial, the Court awarded Plaintiff $18,5000, offset by a $10,000 credit from the good faith settlement, for a total of $8,500.

On January 10, 2025, the Court issued a Statement of Decision and entered Judgment. On January 23, 2025, Defendant Dangoor filed the instant Motion to Set Aside or Vacate Judgment. On March 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply to the Motion to Set Aside or Vacate Judgment.

“The court's inherent power to correct clerical errors includes errors made in the entry of the judgment or due to inadvertence of the court. The term ‘clerical error’ covers all errors, mistakes, or omissions which are not the result of the exercise of the judicial function. If an error, mistake, or omission is the result of inadvertence, but for which a different judgment would have been rendered, the error is clerical and the judgment may be corrected. The signing of a judgment, which does not express the actual judicial intention of the court, is clerical rather than judicial error.” (Conservatorship of Tobias (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 1031, 1035.)

“A court of general jurisdiction has this inherent power to correct clerical error in its records, whether made by the court, clerk or counsel, at anytime so as to conform its records to the truth…A correctable clerical error includes one made by the court which cannot reasonably be attributed to the exercise of judicial consideration or discretion.” (Aspen International Capital Corp. v. Marsch (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1199, 1204.)

A judgment may be set aside and a new judgment entered may also be set aside pursuant to CCP §663. “A judgment or decree, when based upon a decision by the court, or the special verdict of a jury, may, upon motion of the party aggrieved, be set aside and vacated by the same court, and another and different judgment entered, for either of the following causes, materially affecting the substantial rights of the party and entitling the party to a different judgment: 1. Incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or not supported by the facts; and in such case when the judgment is set aside, the statement of decision shall be amended and corrected. 2. A judgment or decree not consistent with or not supported by the special verdict.” (CCP §663.)

Defendant Dangoor moves to vacate or modify the judgment entered on January 10, 2025. Dangoor argues the judgment does not accurately reflect the judgment of the Court, as reflected in the Statement of Decision. Dangoor argues the judgment fails to include a credit for the Settling Defendants’ settlement with Plaintiff in the amount of $10,000. Dangoor asks that the judgment be vacated or modified to reflect the credit.

In his opposition, Plaintiff does not dispute that the judgment needs to be amended to account for the $10,000 settlement. Plaintiff, however, objects to the proposed judgment because it fails to included statutory costs incurred by him and attorney’s fees. Plaintiff’s motion for recovery of attorney’s fees is set for May 8, 2025.

Defendant Dangoor fails to identify “[i]ncorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision” that would require amendment of the statement of decision. (CCP §663(1).) The request to vacate or set aside pursuant to CCP §663(1) is therefore denied.

The Court agrees, however, that the judgment entered on January 10, 2025 contains a clerical error. The judgment fails to reflect the Court’s decision as reflected by the Statement of Decision filed on January 10, 2025, because it fails to include the $10,000 credit for the good faith settlement of Settling Defendants and the correct judgment amount of $8,500.

With regard to Plaintiff’s claim that the judgment should be modified to include his costs and any attorney’s fees he will be awarded once his motion for attorney’s fees is heard on May 8, 2025. Plaintiff’s request for modification was raised in opposition for the first time and is disregarded for this reason. Plaintiff was also the party that drafted the January 10, 2025 order and it was he who failed to include a paragraph for a future award of costs and attorney’s fees.

Pursuant to its inherent powers, the Court corrects and modifies the January 10, 2025 judgment nunc pro tunc as follows:

¶1 of the January 10, 2025 judgment, located at 1:25-26, is deleted and replaced with “1. Plaintiff shall be awarded damages in the amount of $8,500, which reflects the $10,000 credit for the good faith settlement entered into by Plaintiff and Defendants Iman Eshagyan, Mina Eschaghyan, Coldwell Banker Realty, REeBroker Group, Inc. and RE Broker Group, Inc. prior to trial.”

Defendant Dangoor’s Motion to Vacate or Modify Judgment is GRANTED as to the request to modify and DENIED as to the request to vacate. The Court corrects the January 10, 2025 judgment nunc pro tunc as follows: