Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV00881, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV00881, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV00881 Hearing Date: March 1, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: March 1, 2024¿

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV00881

CASE NAME: Vahedi and Khakshooy Detal Inc; LAX Dental Group v. Mustafa Mahmut Ay, et al.

¿ ¿

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Vahedi and Khakshooy Dental Inc dba LAX Dental Group

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants, Mustafa Mahmut Ay; Eclectic Trading LLC (No Opposition)

DISPOSED OF DATE: November 21, 2023

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Amend Judgment

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND¿

A. Factual¿

¿¿

On November 21, 2023, this Court entered judgment by default against Defendants, Mustafa Mahmut Ay and Eclectic Trading LLC in the amount of $149,435. However, Plaintiffs note that after judgment was entered, they discovered a typographical error in 5a of the Judgment as the Defendant, Eclectic Trading LLC was incorrectly misspelled.

As such, Plaintiffs have brought this Motion to Amend Judgement to correct said error.

B. Procedural

On January 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this Motion to Amend Judgment. To date, no opposition has been filed.

II. ANALYSIS ¿

A. Legal Standard

“The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out they name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect. . .The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as my be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars. . .” (Code Civ. Proc., §473, subd. (a)(1).) The court, “regardless of the lapse of time, has inherent power to correct mistakes in its judgments or orders. [citation] This power, however, is limited to mistakes which are not the result of an exercise of judicial discretion.” (In re Sloan’s Estate (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 283, 292.)

B. Discussion

Here, Plaintiffs’ request falls under the court’s authority to correct a clerical error and its “inherent power to supervise the execution of its orders, and even modify them in ways affecting only the details of their performance.” (Vallelunga v. Gomez (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 374, 382 [internal quotations omitted].) Accordingly ,the court grants motion to amend the name of the judgment in 5a from “Ecletic Trading LLC” to the correct name: “Eclectic Trading, LLC”.

III. CONCLUSION¿

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Judgment is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.