Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC03528, Date: 2023-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC03528    Hearing Date: September 26, 2023    Dept: 26

Park v. Edelson, et al.

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT

(CCP § 473(d))

TENTATIVE RULING:

Judgment Creditor Young Hee Park’s Motion to Amend Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc is GRANTED. JUDGMENT CREDITOR IS TO FILE A PROPOSED AMENDED JUDGMENT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On May 5, 2021, Judgment Creditor Young Hee Park (“Judgment Creditor”) filed the instant action for civil rights violations against Judgment Debtor Steven Elliot Edelson, as an individual, and as a representative of the Los Angeles Entertainment Trust Dated October 21, 2016 (“Judgment Debtor”). Default judgment was entered against Judgment Debtor on July 5, 2022.

Judgment Creditor filed the instant Motion to Amend Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc on July 7, 2023. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion 

Courts have 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, subd. (d).) This includes clerical errors when made by an attorney who drafts the judgment. (See In re Marriage of Kaufman (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 147, 151.) However, while a trial court may correct clerical errors and misprisions in a judgment, it cannot amend a judgment once entered, if the error to be corrected is a judicial one, for instance if it embodies an intentional action of the court even though legally erroneous. (Kamper v. Mark Hopkins, Inc. (1947) 78 Cal App 2d 885.)

Judgment Creditor has shown that they intended to enter judgment against Judgment Debtor solely as “Steven Elliot Edelson, an individual,” instead of individually and in Judgment Debtor’s representative capacity. Judgment Creditor’s attorney attests that banks often refuse to honor bank levies where the account holder has a legal description after their name. (Motion, Kim Decl., ¶3.) Here, the judgment was entered against Judgment Debtor individually and in their representative capacity. Accordingly, the request to amend the judgment to name Judgment Debtor solely as an individual is granted.

Conclusion

Judgment Young Hee Park’s Motion to Amend Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc is GRANTED. JUDGMENT CREDITOR IS TO FILE A PROPOSED AMENDED JUDGMENT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.