Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 21STCV27787, Date: 2024-10-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV27787, Date: 2024-10-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27787 Hearing Date: October 2, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR

Hearing Date: 10/2/24

CASE NO./NAME: 21STCV27787 JEHAN ZEB MIR vs LOREN JACOB GOLDMAN, et al.

Moving Party: Plaintiff

Responding Party: Defendants

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: MOTION TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR IS DENIED

Legal Authority

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.)

Discussion

Plaintiff, appearing in pro per, moves to correct a clerical error, claiming that the case status incorrectly reflects a court-ordered dismissal as of 9/13/22. Upon examining Plaintiff's argument, the Court is unsure of the basis for this request. From what the Court can piece together, Plaintiff has been labeled a vexatious litigant and was required to obtain a prefiling order before initiating a lawsuit. When Plaintiff filed the present case, Judge Cowan held an order to show cause (OSC) on August 22, 2022, inquiring why a prefiling order was not obtained prior to filing the suit. Plaintiff seems to take issue with the legal authority and facts relied upon by the Court in making that decision and argues that the Court had no jurisdiction. If that is the case, this is beyond the scope of a motion to correct a clerical mistake; contesting the legal and factual foundation of a court order would fall under judicial error, not clerical error.

On September 12, 2022, the court held another OSC on the same issue, and on September 13, 2022, the Court ordered the dismissal of the present case, as reflected in the current case status. Plaintiff states that the status makes no reference to a motion for reconsideration of the September 13, 2022, dismissal order. On January 18, 2023, the Court heard Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the September 13, 2022, order and denied it. Upon examining the record and based on the evidence and arguments provided, there appears to be no clerical mistake regarding the status of the case, which remains dismissed as of September 13, 2022. Thus, the present motion is DENIED.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.