On 11/20/2017 GERARD FACCHINI filed an Other - Other Judgment lawsuit against SHOWFX , INC , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
SHOWFX INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
11/20/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet
11/20/2017: Request For Enforcement of Order for Restitution/Judgment Pursuant to Penal Code Section 1214
7/26/2018: Notice of Rejection - Ex Parte Application Without Hearing - AFFIDAVIT OF IDENTITY
Notice of Rejection - Ex Parte Application Without Hearing AFFIDAVIT OF IDENTITY; Filed by:Read MoreRead Less
Case assigned to in ROOM 118 Stanley Mosk CourthouseRead MoreRead Less
Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: GERARD FACCHINI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Request For Entry of Judgment (Enforcement of Judgment); Filed by: GERARD FACCHINI (Plaintiff); As to: SHOWFX , INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Court orders judgment entered for Plaintiff GERARD FACCHINI against Defendant SHOWFX , INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION on the Complaint filed by GERARD FACCHINI on 11/20/2017 for the principal amount of $8,508.90, interest of $0.00, and costs of $250.00 for a total of $8,758.90.Read MoreRead Less
Judgment; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: 17STCP01281 Hearing Date: April 12, 2021 Dept: 25
HEARING DATE: Mon., April 12, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25
CASE NAME: Facchini v. Showfx, Inc. JUDGMENT: 11-20-17
CASE NUMBER: 17STCP01281
PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND/OR STRIKE ERRONEOUSLY FILED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT
MOVING PARTY: Labor Commissioner of the State of California
RESP. PARTY: None
MOTION TO SET ASIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT
(Code Civ. Proc., § 187; Remillard v. Brick Co. v. Dandini (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 617; Ames v. Paley (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 668)
The Labor Commissioner of the State of California’s Motion to Set Aside and/or Strike Erroneously filed Acknowledgement of Full Satisfaction of Judgment is GRANTED. The Labor Commissioner is ordered to file an Acknowledgement of Partial Satisfaction of Judgment within ten (10) days of notice of this order.
[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK
[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK
[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK
OPPOSITION: None filed as of April 8, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as of April 8, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None
On November 20, 2017, the Labor Commissioner with the State of California, Department of Industrial Relations (the “Labor Commissioner”) filed a Request that the Clerk Enter Judgment on Final Order, Decision or Award of the Labor Commissioner. That same day, the Court entered a judgment in favor of Plaintiff Gerard Facchini (“Plaintiff”) and against Defendant Showfx, Inc. (“Defendant”) in the amount of $8,758.90.
The Labor Commissioner filed an acknowledgment of full satisfaction of judgment on January 30, 2020.
On March 5, 2021, the Labor Commissioner filed the instant Motion to Set Aside and/or Strike Erroneously filed Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment (the “Motion”). No Opposition was filed.
Legal Standard & Discussion
With this Motion, the Labor Commissioner seeks to set aside an acknowledgment of full satisfaction of judgment that was erroneously filed by its office. (Mot., p. 3:3-10.)
A trial court has the power, “ ‘after final judgment, and regardless of lapse of time to correct clerical errors or misprisons in its records, whether made by the clerk, counsel or the court itself, so that the records will conform to and speak the truth. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Ames v. Paley (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 668, 672.) (Emphasis added.) This includes the ability to set aside a satisfaction of judgment that has been filed and entered due to mistake. (See Remillard v. Brick Co. v. Dandini (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 617, 622.) In addition, Code of Civil Procedure section 187 provides,
“When 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.”
The Labor Commissioner explains that an award of $8,508.90 was awarded to Plaintiff in an underlying administrative wage claim adjudication process under Labor Code section 98. (Mot., p. 3:12-21, Norris Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.) The Labor Commissioner states that on November 7, 2017, it exercised its ministerial duty under Labor Code section 98 and sought to have a clerk’s judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $8,758.90, representing the underlying award plus the applicable filing fee under Labor Code section 101. (Id.) Over two years after the judgment was entered, Defendant sent the Labor Commissioner two checks, one for $8,508.90 and another for $250.00. (Id. at p. 3:23-24, Norris Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. C.) Having received these two checks, representing the original award amount and the $250.00 filing fee, the Labor Commissioner erroneously filed an acknowledgment of full satisfaction of the judgment on January 30, 2020 without considering the post-judgment interest that accrued before the date of the checks, December 17, 2019. (Id. at p. 3:25-27, Norris Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. D.) Indeed, a judgment creditor is entitled to interest on an unsatisfied judgment, which accumulates at a rate of 10 percent per annum. (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.010, subd. (a).)
Here, the Labor Commissioner committed a clerical error by filing a full satisfaction of judgment instead of a partial satisfaction of judgment. (Mot., p. 5:10-13.) As discussed above, the Court is empowered to correct clerical mistakes, such as this one. Accordingly, the Labor Commissioner’s Motion is GRANTED. The Labor Commissioner is ordered to file an Acknowledgement of Partial Satisfaction of Judgment within ten (10) days of notice of this order.
Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, the Labor Commissioner of the State of California’s Motion to Set Aside and/or Strike Erroneously filed Acknowledgement of Full Satisfaction of Judgment is GRANTED. The Labor Commissioner is ordered to file an Acknowledgement of Partial Satisfaction of Judgment within ten (10) days of notice of this order.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases