Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 19STCP02973, Date: 2024-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCP02973    Hearing Date: April 17, 2024    Dept: 82

John Doe v. Timothy P. White, et al.

Case No. 19STCP02973

Motion to Amend Judgment

            Petitioner John Doe (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus against Timothy P. White, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the California State University, as well as the Board of Trustees of the California State University (collectively, “Respondents”).  Petitioner alleged that he did not receive a fair administrative hearing relating to allegations of sexual misconduct.  The court (Beckloff, J.) denied the writ and entered judgment in favor of Respondents.  Petitioner filed a timely appeal, and the District Court of Appeal, Division Five, affirmed the judgment.  Now, Respondents seek to amend the judgment to enter costs in the amount of $5,813.70, and to include Petitioner’s true name on the judgment.  The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

            A.        Costs   

            The court grants the motion as it relates to costs.  Respondents filed and served an amended memorandum of costs on April 15, 2022, claiming a total of $5,813.70.  Petitioner did not file a timely motion to tax costs.  “After the time has passed for a motion to strike or tax costs or for determination of that motion, the clerk must immediately enter the costs on the judgment.”  (CRC Rule 3.1700(b)(4).)  The judgment signed by the court and filed April 18, 2022, has not been formally amended by the court to specify the amount of costs.  Accordingly, the court will correct this clerical error and enter the $5,813.70 in costs in the judgment.  (See CCP § 473(d); In re Marriage of Boblitt (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1028.) 

            Petitioner argues that he has an approved fee waiver on file.  Nonetheless, Petitioner did not file a timely motion to strike or tax the cost award, waiving any objection to the costs claimed by Respondents.  (Douglas v. Willis (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 287, 289-90 [“the ‘failure to file a motion to tax costs constitutes a waiver of the right to object.”].)  Further, Petitioner’s fee waiver only applies to fees and costs imposed by the court.  Petitioner cites no authority for the proposition that his fee waiver erases Respondents’ recovery of costs against him after Respodents prevailed.  Nor does Petitioner identify specific costs that would fall within the scope of the fee waiver.  Therefore, Petitioner’s argument lacks merit.

            B.        Petitioner’s True Name

            Respondents’ motion is denied.  Respondents cite no authority that the court may amend a judgment to reflect the true name of a party who proceeded with a pseudonym in a case involving allegations of sexual misconduct.  The only case cited by Respondents—People v. Landon White Bail Bonds (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 66—does not address this issue.  Although Petitioner did not apply for leave of court to proceed in this manner, Respondents never challenged his use of a pseudonym.  Therefore, the motion is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Based upon the foregoing, the court orders as follows:

            1.         Respondents’ motion to amend the judgment is granted in part and denied in part.

            2.         The court grants the motion to the extent it seeks to amend the judgment to include $5,813.70 in costs.

            3.         The court denies the motion to the extent it seeks to amend the judgment to reflect Petitioner’s true name.

            4.         Respondents’ counsel shall lodge an amended judgment consistent with this order. 

            5.         Respondents’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of service with the court.