Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 19STLC04590 2022-12-22 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

Plaintiff Richard Casaletta’s Motion to Amend Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.

Plaintiff Richard Casaletta (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract against Defendant Michael Stevenson (“Defendant”) on May 10, 2019. The First Amended Complaint was filed on December 23, 2019. On April 1, 2020, Plaintiff obtained default judgment against Defendant. On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Amend Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Plaintiff moves for the Court to issue an amended judgment setting forth the factual findings of Defendant’s liability on the grounds that such findings must be set forth for enforcement of the judgment in Defendant’s home state. (Motion, p. 3:12-15.) The Motion is brought to Code of Civil Procedure section 632, which provides that a party may request a statement of decision by the Court upon a trial of question of fact. No authority is provided as to how this section is applicable this this action, where there has been no trial upon a question of fact.

The Motion is alternatively brought pursuant the Court’s inherent powers to correct judgments by a nunc pro tunc order where there has been clerical error by clerk or by the judge himself, or where some provision of, or omission from, order or judgment was due to inadvertence, or mistake of court. (Lane v. Superior Court of Siskiyou County (1950) 98 Cal App 2d 165, 219; Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subdivision (d).) It may also be exercised by the courts “for the purpose of doing justice between the parties.” (Fox v. Hale & Norcross Silver Min. Co. (1895) 108 Cal. 478, 480.)

However, Plaintiff does not indicate in what state enforcement was sought and prevented by the lack of factual findings. Nor does the Motion cite to the authority of that state that prevents the enforcement of the default judgment issued in its current form. Finally, the Motion is not supported by any declaration attesting to Plaintiff’s enforcement efforts and the purported obstacles faced due to the lack of factual findings in the default judgment. There is no basis for the Court to determine that a statement of decision is needed for the purpose of doing justice between the parties.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Richard Casaletta’s Motion to Amend Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.