Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 20PSCV00108, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. R at 909-802-1117 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 20PSCV00108    Hearing Date: August 8, 2022    Dept: R

Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A.’s Motion to Set Aside and Amend Stipulated Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc

            Responding Party: Unopposed

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A.’s Motion to Set Aside and Amend Stipulated Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc is GRANTED.

Background

This case arises from Common Counts.

On February 7, 2020, Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendant Shane C. Cherry (“Defendant”) for Common Counts: Book Account, Account Stated in the amount of $30,076.56.

On April 1, 2020, Defendant filed its Answer.

On November 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment on Stipulation which the court granted on January 14, 2022.

On June 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to amend the Judgment.  

Legal Standard

Under § 473(d), the 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. CCP § 473(d). The distinction between clerical error and judicial error, which cannot be corrected by amendment, is whether the error is made in rendering the judgment, or in recording the judgment rendered. (In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal 3d 702, 705.) That is, the test between clerical and judicial mistake is simply whether challenged judgment was made or entered inadvertently (clerical error) or advertently (judicial error). (Nathanson v Murphy (1957, 1st Dist) 147 Cal App 2d 462, 469.) Any attempt by a court, under the guise of correcting clerical error, to revise its deliberately exercised judicial discretion is not permitted. (Candelario, supra, 3 Cal.3d at 705.)

Discussion

Plaintiff states that its proposed judgment sought the incorrect amount of court costs. On January 14, 2022, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion and entered judgment—as stated in the proposed judgment—for “the principal sum of $30,076.56, plus court costs $584.50 pursuant to the Memorandum of Costs filed simultaneously herewith, for total judgment in the sum of $30,661.06.” However, due to a clerical error in drafting the stipulated judgment, the judgment mistakenly sought $584.50 in court costs rather than the correct amount of $564.50. The correct judgment amount should be $30,641.06, which consists of the prayer amount of $30,076.56 plus court costs of $564.50.

Here, Plaintiff essentially requests that the court correct a mere clerical error.

Therefore, exercising its discretion under CCP 473(d), the court GRANTS the motion.