Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV46742, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV46742    Hearing Date: November 6, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     November 6, 2024                 JUDGMENT: September 9, 2024

CASE:                         Joseph Levy v. Taber Nash, et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV46742           

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Joseph Levy.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 11/4/24

CASE HISTORY:

·         12/22/21: Complaint filed

·         02/07/22: Cross-Complaint filed.

·         09/09/24: Judgment entered after Court trial.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for conversion. Plaintiff alleges that he contracted with Defendants to restore a 1955 Chevrolet pickup truck, and that Defendants, without Plaintiff’s authorization, released the truck to a third-party automotive workshop, and then lost the truck to that third party via a mechanic’s lien for failure to pay for those services.

Plaintiff, as Judgment Creditor, moves to amend the judgment to correct the calculated prejudgment interest.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Judgment is GRANTED.

            The Court finds that paragraph 6 of the Judgment should be amended to reflect an award of prejudgment interest to Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $18,793.44.

            The Court also finds sua sponte that paragraph 8 of the Judgment should be amended to indicate that Judgment is granted on the sixth cause of action for negligence only.

            Plaintiff is directed to prepare an amended judgment in conformity with the Court’s ruling within 20 days of this order. 

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff, as Judgment Creditor, moves to amend the judgment to correct the calculated prejudgment interest.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 subdivision (d), the Court may, on motion of an injured party or on its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered so as to conform to the judgment or order directed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d).) “A clerical error results when the order or judgment misstates the court’s actual intent (i.e., error in recording the judgment rendered), and judicial error results when the order or judgment entered was intended, even though based on an error of law (i.e., error in rendering the judgment).” (Burch v. CertainTeed Corp. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 341, 346.)

On September 9, 2024, the Court entered judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendants following a bench trial. (See September 9, 2024 Judgment.) As reflected in the Court’s Final Statement of Decision dated July 26, 2024, the Court found against Plaintiff on the first cause of action for conversion, but found in favor of Plaintiff on the sixth cause of action for negligence, awarding Plaintiff $79,800 in damages plus prejudgment interest “at an annual rate of 7 percent from March 16, 2021, to the present.” (Plaintiff’s Exh. C. p.6 [Final Statement of Decision].) The Judgment as entered awarded a total of $13,708.80 as prejudgment interest. (See Judgment p.2.) However, at a rate of 7% per annum from March 16, 2021 to July 26, 2024, the correct amount of prejudgment interest on $79,800 in damages was $18,793.44 ($79,800 x 0.07 divided by 365 days/year x 1,228 days.) The Court concurs with Plaintiff that the judgment, as entered does not accurately reflect the Court’s Final Statement of Decision, and, therefore, that there is a clerical error as to the correct amount of prejudgment interest.

The Court also independently observes that the Judgment, as entered, states that judgment is entered in Plaintiff’s favor on both the first cause of action for conversion and the sixth cause of action for negligence, contrary to the Court’s ruling which only found in favor of plaintiff on the negligence claim. (See Plaintiff’s Exh. C. p.6.) The Court therefore finds sua sponte that the judgment contains a further clerical error in that it does not accurately reflect the Court’s findings on the first cause of action.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Judgment is GRANTED.

            The Court finds that paragraph 6 of the Judgment should be amended to reflect an award of prejudgment interest to Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $18,793.44.

            The Court also finds sua sponte that paragraph 8 of the Judgment should be amended to indicate that Judgment is granted on the sixth cause of action for negligence only.

            Plaintiff is directed to prepare an amended judgment in conformity with the Court’s ruling within 20 days of this order.  

            The Court sets a non-appearance case review to review the proposed Amended Judgment for December 2, 2024.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  November 6, 2024                              ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.