Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 19STCP02787, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling

All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.

Case Number: 19STCP02787    Hearing Date: April 25, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Hearing Date:             April 25, 2024

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Mathew Dunn

Responding Party:      None

Motion to Amend Judgment

            The court has considered the moving papers. No opposition was received.

The court GRANTS the motion.

Background

            On July 1, 2019, plaintiff Matthew Dunn (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Terrence Mumford, dba Mr. T’s Collective, and Mr. T’s Collective LLC (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging causes of action for (1) Dissolution of Partnership; (2) Injunctive Relief; (3) Constructive Trust; (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (5) Breach of Contract; (6) Breach of Contract; (7) Promissory Estoppel; (8) Restitution; (9) Accounting; and (10) Declaratory Relief.

            On November 10, 2021, the court entered judgment following a jury trial.

            On September 15, 2023, the court entered an amended judgment.

            On December 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant unopposed motion to amend the September 15, 2023 judgment to correct the two clerical errors, i.e., the dates.

Legal Standard

Under CCP § 473(d), “[t]he 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, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.”

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to amend the September 15, 2023 judgment to correct the two clerical errors. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the September 15, 2023 judgment contains an incorrect date in two places, on page 2 (lines 10 and 11). The court observes that the judgment states: “This amended judgment corrects the 11/10/2023 judgment signed by the Deputy Clerk of Court; it does not modify the Judgment of Special Verdict filed 11/10/2023 containing relief on equitable causes of action.” (9/15/23 Amended Judgment.) Plaintiff contends the intended date to be referenced is the September 10, 2021 judgment date, and that these errors can be corrected by interlineation as follows: Page 2, Line 10: Strike “11/10/2023” and insert “11/10/2021”; Page 2, Line 11: Strike “11/10/2023” and insert “11/10/2021.”

Based on the court file, the “11/10/2023” date was clearly a clerical error as that date had not even passed yet, and 11/10/2021 is the date of the prior judgment. Accordingly, the unopposed motion is GRANTED.

            It is so ordered.

Dated: April 25, 2024

_______________________

ROLF TREU

Judge of the Superior Court