07AS02773

SMUD vs. Dong Ou

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Order to Correct Clerical Error in Judgment

Filed By: Zamanigan, Timothy N.

Plaintiff SMUD’s motion to correct a clerical error and amend the October 9, 2008

judgment is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED. Accordingly, the judgment entered on
October 9, 2008 is amended nunc pro tunc to amend the principal judgment amount
from “One Hundred Twenty-Four Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety-Five and 40/100
($124,895.40)” to “Ninety-Three Thousand Six Hundred Seventy-One and 55/100
($93,671.55).” The total judgment (reflecting the addition of attorney’s fees and costs
awarded) should be amended from “One Hundred Twenty-Seven Thousand Two
Hundred Twenty dollars and 60/100” to “Ninety-Five Thousand Five Hundred Ninety-
Six and 75/100 dollars ($95,596.75).” These entries occur at page 1, lines 24-25 of the
judgment, and page 2, lines 2-3 of the judgment, respectively.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleged actual damages of $31,223.85 and sought treble damages of that amount pursuant to Civil Code section 1882.2, for a total of $93,671.55, plus attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. (Zamanigan Decl. ¶ 1-2, Exh. A.) SMUD’s prior attorney prepared and filed a judgment packet which incorrectly added the original damage amount to the treble damage amount, to create a principal of $124,895.40. (See Zamanigan Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. B.) SMUD also requested and was granted attorney’s fees of $1,601 plus costs of $324.20, for a total judgment of $127,220.60. (Zamanigan Decl. ¶ 6, 7, Exh. C.) The proper (correct) principal judgment should have been $ 93,671.55 and the proper total judgment [including attorney’s fees of $1,601 plus costs of $324.20] should have been $95,596.75, plus interest as provided by law. (See Zamanigan Decl. ¶ 8.) The error was recently discovered by SMUD, who now seeks to correct the judgment. (Zamanigan Decl. ¶ 9.) SMUD has not yet collected any money from Defendants to be applied toward the judgment. (Zamanigan Decl. ¶ 10.)

The court may, on motion of the injured party, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment as entered to conform to the judgment or order directed (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d); Marriage of Kaufman (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 147, 151.) Indeed, courts possess certain inherent powers that “necessarily result…from the nature of their institution, powers that cannot be dispensed with…because they are necessary to the exercise of all others.” (Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 736, 758, quoting United States v. Hudson & Goodwin (1812) 11 U.S. 32, 34, internal quotations omitted).) These powers are “not confined by or dependent on statute,” (Walker v. Superior Court, (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 257, 267, and include the power to “fashion[] procedures and remedies as necessary to protect litigants’ rights.” (Slesinger, 155 Cal.App.4th at 762.) The California Supreme Court has recognized two types of inherent powers: (1) “courts’ equitable power derived from the historic power of equity courts,” and (2) “supervisory or administrative powers which all courts possess to enable them to carry out their duties.” (Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Superior Court, (1998) 200 Cal.App.3d 272, 287, internal quotations omitted.) The latter powers, in particular, enable a court to “control litigation before it, to prevent abuse of its process, and to create a remedy for a wrong even in the absence of specific statutory authority.” (Western Steel & Ship Repair, Inc. v. RMI, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 1108, 1116-1117.) Indeed, Courts have inherent power, separate from any statutory authority, to control the litigation before them and to adopt any suitable method of practice, even if the method is not specified by statute or by the Rules of Court. [Citations.]” (Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1582, 1595; see also Code Civ. Proc. § 128; Code Civ. Proc. § 187.) Indeed, section 187 recognizes “the inherent authority of a court to make its records speak the truth.” ( Mirabito v. San Francisco Dairy Co. (1935) 8 Cal.App.2d 54, 57.)

The Court is satisfied that the Court records referenced demonstrate clerical error on their face. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to correct clerical error and amend the judgment nunc pro tunc. The Court determines that the proper amount of the principal judgment to be included in the amended judgment is $93,671.55 and the total judgment amount is $95,596.75.

Plaintiff shall prepare a judgment nunc pro tunc for the Court’s signature.