This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/16/2020 at 09:15:52 (UTC).

HINDU TEMPLE AND HERITAGE FOUNDATION VS. ZACHARY BROWN

Case Summary

On 11/09/2017 HINDU TEMPLE AND HERITAGE FOUNDATION filed an Other lawsuit against ZACHARY BROWN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RALPH C. HOFER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7592

  • Filing Date:

    11/09/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

RALPH C. HOFER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

HINDU TEMPLE AND HERITAGE FOUNDATION INC

Defendants

BROWN ZACHARY

FITZHUGH AISSHA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BRENNAN MICHAEL A.

Defendant Attorneys

STEVEN M. TAMER

TAMER STEVEN M.

 

Court Documents

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION AN MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;DECLARATION OF WILLIAM FITCH

11/25/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION AN MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;DECLARATION OF WILLIAM FITCH

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

8/29/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (POST-MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE; 2) TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

7/23/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (POST-MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE; 2) TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; 2) T...)

6/17/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; 2) T...)

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUED OSC

6/7/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUED OSC

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

6/5/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Notice - Notice Mandatory Settlement Conference Statement of Plaintiff Hindu Temple

2/27/2019: Notice - Notice Mandatory Settlement Conference Statement of Plaintiff Hindu Temple

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

11/28/2017: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof-Service/Summons

11/28/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof-Service/Summons

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof-Service/Summons

12/12/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof-Service/Summons

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-12-14 00:00:00

12/14/2017: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-12-14 00:00:00

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-12-18 00:00:00

12/18/2017: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-12-18 00:00:00

Answer

1/18/2018: Answer

Notice of Trial

2/2/2018: Notice of Trial

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Request

3/6/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Request

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Stipulation

3/12/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Stipulation

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice

12/14/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice

Notice of Ruling

12/20/2017: Notice of Ruling

53 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/13/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by HINDU TEMPLE AND HERITAGE FOUNDATION, INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Hearing on Motion to Amend Judgment (Nunc Pro Tunc filed on behalf of Plaintiff Hindu Temple and Heritage Foundation, Inc.) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Amend Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc filed on be...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Order to Show Cause Re: (reDismissal in Light of Settlement) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Motion An Motion to Amend Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc; Memorandum of Points and Authorities;Declaration of William Fitch); Filed by HINDU TEMPLE AND HERITAGE FOUNDATION, INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2019
  • Docketat 4:15 PM in Department D; Nunc Pro Tunc Order - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department D; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department D; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
120 More Docket Entries
  • 11/28/2017
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default (THE PROOF OF SERVICE IS INCOMPLETE (ITEM 4) NO ADDRESS INDICATED IN THE PROOF(S) OF SERVICE ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2017
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2017
  • DocketMotion to Strike; Filed by ZACHARY BROWN (Defendant); AISSHA FITZHUGH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2017
  • DocketMotion to Strike (COMPLAINT; MEMO OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; SET ON 04/20/18 ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2017
  • DocketSummons Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC067592    Hearing Date: February 07, 2020    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 17

Date: 2/7/20

Case No.: EC 067592

Case Name: Hindu Temple and Heritage Foundation, Inc. v. Brown, et al.

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT

Moving Party: Plaintiff Hindu Temple and Heritage Foundation, Inc.

Responding Party: Defendants Zachary Brown and Aiisha Fitzhugh (No Opposition)

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Order amending judgment nunc pro tunc to reflect plaintiff as the party being awarded a money judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:

This is an unlawful detainer action brought by plaintiff Hindu Temple and Heritage Foundation, Inc. against defendants Zachary Brown and Aiisha Fitzhugh based on the alleged failure of defendants to comply with the requirements of a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit.

The file shows that on March 12, 2018, the court entered an Unlawful Detainer Stipulation and Judgment for Possession, ordering that all monetary issues would be bifurcated and decided by the court in a subsequent trial.

On September 30, 2019, the court entered a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment (Unlawful Detainer), which stipulated between the parties that “Defendant” was to be awarded “past due rent of $30,000.”

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff brings this motion to amend the Stipulated Unlawful Detainer Judgment to indicate that “Plaintiff” and not “Defendant” is to be awarded the past due rent, as agreed by the parties.

CCP section 473(d) provides:

“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.”

Under CCP section 128;

“(a) Every court shall have the power to do all of the following:…

(8) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice.”

It has long been held that a trial court has the power, after final judgment, and regardless of lapse of time, to correct clerical errors in its records, whether made by the clerk, counsel, or the court itself, so that the records will conform to and speak the truth. Witkin, 7 Cal. Proc. 5th Judgment section 67, citing Kaufman v. Shain (1896) 111 Cal. 16, 19, et al.

Witkin notes that “The most obvious and appropriate exercise of the power to correct is in situations where there is a clerical error in drafting or copying the judgment,” citing as a common example, where there is a mistake in the name of a party. See Witkin, supra, at section 68, referring to Ray v. Stubenrauch (1904) 141 Cal. 573, 574; Thomson v. L.C. Roney & Co. (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 420, 425.

Here, it appears whoever prepared the Stipulation inadvertently checked the box for “Defendant,” instead of “Plaintiff” at paragraph 2 on the form. Plaintiff has submitted a declaration indicating that plaintiff was the proper party to be awarded a monetary judgment for past due rent. [Fitch Decl. ¶ 5]. There is no opposition here arguing otherwise, and the previously filed stipulation for possession expressly states that, “Defendants confirm they claim no rights to any personal property left at the subject property,” and that the monetary issues to be decided in the separate trial, “may include all monetary issues including unpaid rent, damages to the subject property, storage fees, waste hauling, and any other damages under the lease and CC 1952.3 that may be applicable to a future money judgment.” This suggests that all monetary damages contemplated in this matter were those owed to plaintiff by defendant, and not the other way around. This is a classic case of a clerical error in the judgment, likely on the part of the attorney who prepared the Stipulation. The motion therefore is granted, and the judgment is corrected as requested.

RULING:

[No Opposition]

UNOPPOSED Motion to Amend Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc is GRANTED. Pursuant to CCP §§ 473(d) and 128, the court corrects the clerical mistake in its Stipulation for Entry of Judgment (Unlawful Detainer) entered September 30, 2019, so as to conform to the judgment stipulated to and ordered by the court. At paragraph 2, the box checked “Defendant” is ordered stricken and the box “Plaintiff” is ordered checked, so that the judgment is corrected to provide that plaintiff is entitled to past due rent $30,000.