Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC07746, Date: 2024-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC07746    Hearing Date: April 18, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, April 18, 2024

Case Name:                             TRUIST BANK, successor-in-interest to Medallion Bank v. SILVA ABRAMYAN

Case No.:                                23STLC07746

Motion:                                   Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Order to Correct Clerical Errors in Clerk’s Default Judgment Entered on February 07, 2024

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Truist Bank  

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff’s Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Order to Correct Clerical Errors in Clerk’s Default Judgment Entered on February 07, 2024, is GRANTED.

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to electronically submit a proposed amended Judgment consistent with this Court’s order within 10-days.

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 April 05, 2024                      [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of April 11, 2024                      [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

            On December 05, 2023, Plaintiff Truist Bank (“Plaintiff”) filed two causes of action against Defendant Silva Abramyan (“Defendant”) for 1) breach of contract, and 2) quantum meruit/unjust enrichment.

            On January 25, 2024, Plaintiff moved for default to be entered against Defendant, and the Clerk entered default the same day.

            On February 07, 2024, the Court entered default judgment against the Defendant in the amount of $26,021.54.

            On February 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Nunc Pro TunC Order to Correct Clerical Errors in Clerk’s Default Judgment Entered on February 07, 2024.

No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Plainitff prays for the Court to issue a nunc pro tunc order that corrects the clerical errors in the Clerks’ Default Judgement entered on February 7, 2024, and grants Plaintiff with the full measure of relief to which it is entitled in the Judgment on the grounds that the Judgment amount is inaccurate as a result of an inaccurate pre-judgment interest figure that conflicts with the averments in the Complaint.

OPPOSITION

            No opposition has been filed.

REPLY

            No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          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.) 

II.        Discussion

Plaintiff moves for a nunc pro tunc order to correct the clerical errors which understate the pre-judgment interest due and owed to the Plaintiff as of date of entry of Judgment. (Mot. p. 2.) Plaintiff argues that per the averments in the Complaint, the pre-judgment interest component of the Judgment should be $7,931.68, and not $3,782.03 as specified in the Judgment, bringing the judgment amount to $30,171.19 instead of the $26,021.54 entered by the Clerk. (Id.) Plaintiff provides the Court with the Declaration of its counsel who states that she,

filed a proposed form of Clerk’s Judgment by Default for entry by the Clerk which mistakenly included the wrong figures for pre-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees. While the Clerk corrected the error in the attorneys’ fee figure, the Clerk did not correct the error in the pre-judgment interest figure so that it would conform to the averments in the Complaint. As a result, the pre-judgment interest figure in the Judgment is understated and consequently so is the amount of the Judgment.

(Collen M. Auer Decl. ¶ 3.) Per the Complaint, there was $2,328.26 in prejudgment interest due and owing by Defendant through May 5, 2021, with prejudgment interest continuing to accrue at the Contract rate of 9.95%, or $5.57 per day from May 06, 2021, until the date of Judgement on February 07, 2024. (Id. ¶ 4.) Meaning that the prejudgment interest due and owing by the Defendant was $7,931,68 instead of the $3,782.03 specified in the Judgment. (Id.)

The Court finds the evidence sufficient to show that the interest amount of $3,782.03 specified in the February 07, 2024, Judgment was a clerical error. Noting both the Complaint and Plaintiff’s declaration, prejudgment interest accrued at the Contract rate of 9.95%, or $5.57 per day from May 06, 2021, until the date of Judgment.

Accordingly, the Court amends the Judgment to reflect the correct prejudgment interest amount of $7,931,68, bringing the total Judgment amount to $30,171.19.

II.        Conclusion

            Plaintiff’s Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Order to Correct Clerical Errors in Clerk’s Default Judgment Entered on February 07, 2024, is GRANTED.

The prejudgment interest amount shall be amended to reflect the correct amount of $7,931,68, bringing the total Judgment amount to $30,171.19.

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to electronically submit a proposed form of amended judgment within 10-days.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice.