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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
RALPH C. HOFER
HINDU TEMPLE AND HERITAGE FOUNDATION INC
BRENNAN MICHAEL A.
STEVEN M. TAMER
TAMER STEVEN M.
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
8/29/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)
7/23/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (POST-MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE; 2) TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)
6/17/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; 2) T...)
6/7/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUED OSC
6/5/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)
2/27/2019: Notice - Notice Mandatory Settlement Conference Statement of Plaintiff Hindu Temple
11/28/2017: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment
11/28/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof-Service/Summons
12/12/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof-Service/Summons
12/14/2017: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-12-14 00:00:00
12/18/2017: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-12-18 00:00:00
2/2/2018: Notice of Trial
3/6/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Request
3/12/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Stipulation
12/14/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice
12/20/2017: Notice of Ruling
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by HINDU TEMPLE AND HERITAGE FOUNDATION, INC (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
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.) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Amend Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc filed on be...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Order to Show Cause Re: (reDismissal in Light of Settlement) - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
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
Docketat 4:15 PM in Department D; Nunc Pro Tunc Order - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department D; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's MotionRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department D; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Court's MotionRead MoreRead Less
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 PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketMotion to Strike; Filed by ZACHARY BROWN (Defendant); AISSHA FITZHUGH (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion to Strike (COMPLAINT; MEMO OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; SET ON 04/20/18 ); Filed by Attorney for DefendantRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover SheetRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons IssuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons FiledRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: EC067592 Hearing Date: February 07, 2020 Dept: NCD
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)
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.”
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,
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
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.
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.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases