Case Number: 09CC3264 Hearing Date: May 30, 2018 Dept: 94

Plaintiff Dominguez Hills Village Community Association’s Motion to Correct Clerical Error in Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

On July 27, 2009, Plaintiff Dominguez Hills Village Community Association (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Doretha Hale and Brochelle Hale (“Defendants”). On November 13, 2009, default judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants. On April 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Correct Clerical Error in Judgment (the “Motion”), seeking to change the name of Defendant “Doretha Hale” on the default judgment to “Doretha Hale aka Doretha Garner.”

Legal Standard

CCP § 187 states: “[w]hen jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this code.”

“A court of general jurisdiction has this inherent power to correct clerical error in its records, whether made by the court, clerk or counsel, at anytime so as to conform its records to the truth.” (Aspen Internat. Capital Corp. v. Marsch (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1199, 1204.) Courts have a “plain duty[] to remedy clerical errors.” (Roth v. Marston (1952) 110 Cal.App.2d 249, 251.)

“A court should only enter a nunc pro tunc judgment ‘‘when it is apparent that the delay in rendering the judgment, or a failure to enter it after its rendition, is the result of some act or delay of the court, and is not owing to any fault of the party making the application.’’” (Cadlo v. Metalclad Insulation Corp. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1311, 1323-1324.)

Discussion

Plaintiff argues that the default judgment contains a clerical error of one of the Defendants’ names, which should be “Doretha Hale aka Doretha Garner” instead of “Doretha Hale.” (Motion pp. 3-4.) Plaintiff, therefore, requests that the Court correct the supposed clerical error and enter the default judgment nunc pro tunc with Defendant’s name as “Doretha Hale aka Doretha Garner.” (Id.)

The Court notes, however, that Plaintiff fails to specify whose clerical error it was that caused Defendant’s name to be different on the default judgment and how the clerical error arose. Significantly, here, is that Plaintiff named Defendant as “Doretha Hale” in the Complaint and not “Doretha Hale aka Doretha Garner.” (See Compl.) Therefore, it was neither a Court’s error nor court clerk’s error in entering the default judgment against Defendant as “Doretha Hale.” For this reason, there was no clerical or court error to be corrected nunc pro tunc.

Plaintiff, however, may amend the default judgment to change Defendant Doretha Hale’s name. “‘The rule has long been declared in California that where the facts warrant, courts may amend pleadings to correctly designate the parties actually involved, even though the statute of limitations has run in favor of the party substituted. [Citations.] The basis of the rule is, of course, that the court having acquired jurisdiction of the person of the defendant and of the subject of the action, it necessarily possessed the power to correct a misnomer. In the cases last mentioned, it is true, no judgment had been rendered at the time of the amendment.’” (Manson, Iver & York v. Black (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 36, 45–46, citing to Mirabito v. San Francisco Dairy Co. (1935) 8 Cal.App.2d 54, 60.) “The two names were presumed to signify two different persons,” unless the moving party presents admissible and sufficient evidence showing that the two names signify the same person. (Id. at 45-46.)

The Court notes, however, that Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence to demonstrate that “Doretha Hale” is the same person as “Doretha Garner” and to rebut the presumption that the two names signify two different persons. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving party to give notice.