Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV20484, Date: 2024-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20484    Hearing Date: July 18, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On August 25, 2023, Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, National Association filed this action against Defendant Daniel Ray Gonzalez as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert Kim Gonzales.

On May 28, 2024, the Court entered default judgment.

On June 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the judgment nunc pro tunc “so that the Judgment Debtor’s name can be corrected.”  (Motion at p. 1.)

Counsel declares that “[i]t has come to [her] attention that due to clerical error ‘individually and’ was left out of Defendant’s name.”  (Ramirez-Browning Decl. ¶ 3.)  The Estate has no funds because they were transferred to Gonzalez as personal representative.  (Ramirez-Browning Decl. ¶ 4.)  Plaintiff contends that Gonzalez is personally responsible for the debts and should be included as an individual in the judgment so Plaintiff can pursue collection of the judgment.  (Ramirez-Browning Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.)

The Complaint does allege that Gonzalez “is sued in his individual capacity, and also as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert Kim Gonzales.”  (Complaint ¶ 2.)  However, nowhere else was Gonzalez named in his individual capacity.  The Complaint’s caption identifies the Defendants as “DANIEL RAY GONZALEZ, as Personal Representative of ROBERT KIM GONZALES, Deceased, and DOES 1-20.”  Accordingly, summons issued for “DANIEL RAY GONZALEZ, as Personal Representative of ROBERT KIM GONZALES, Deceased, and DOES 1-20.”  Plaintiff applied for service via publication and later filed a Proof of Publication that gave notice to “DANIEL RAY GONZALEZ, as Personal Representative of ROBERT KIM GONZALES, Deceased, and DOES 1-20.”

Gonzalez was sued only as personal representative of the Estate.  Gonzalez was never sued or served in his individual capacity.  Adding him to the judgment in his individual capacity is not a correction of a mere clerical error—it is the addition of an entirely new defendant.  “[A] trial court’s authority to amend its judgment nunc pro tunc is limited to correcting clerical errors in the judgment.”  (Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Assn. v. McMullin (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 982, 1009.)  Plaintiff may still be able to amend the judgment in other ways, such as by adding an alter ego of the original judgment debtor, but a nunc pro tunc amendment is not appropriate when this amendment is more than a mere clerical error.

Accordingly, the motion to amend judgment is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 18th day of July 2024