Wells Fargo Bank NA vs Jesus Cuevas Gonzalez

Case Number

24CV00877

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 12/19/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Amend

Tentative Ruling

For the reasons set forth herein, plaintiff’s motion to amend judgment is granted.

Background:

This action commenced on February 20, 2024, by the filing of the judicial council form complaint by plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (plaintiff) against defendant Jesus Cuevas Gonzalez (defendant) for breach of contract related to money owed on a credit card account.

Defendant appeared and answered the complaint on May 30, 2024.

On January 30, 2025, the parties filed a signed stipulation for judgment, in favor of plaintiff, for the principal amount due of $10,150.23, costs of $452.00, and attorneys’ fees of $694.51.

On January 31, 2025, judgment was entered for the principal amount due of $10,150.23, costs of $694.51, and attorneys’ fees of $452.00.

Because the amounts due as costs and as attorneys’ fees were inadvertently switched, plaintiff now moves to amend the judgment to reflect the correct amount for the costs and the correct amount for the attorneys’ fees. The total amount of the judgment will not be affected.

The motion was properly and timely served. Defendant has not filed opposition or any other response to the motion.

Analysis:

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d).)

“It is well settled that a court has inherent power, on motion of a party or on its own motion, to correct clerical errors in a judgment or order at any time.” (Dorland v. Dorland (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 664, 670.) “Where, as in the instant case, ‘ “the amendment does not affect substantial rights of the defendant, but consists in the rectifying of a clerical mistake appearing on the face of the record” ’, courts have consistently displayed liberality in permitting amendment. [Citation.] It would be a reproach to the efficiency of our legal system if it did not sensibly provide a summary method by which to correct obvious and formal mistakes of the character here involved.” (Ibid.) 

Here, this is simply an obvious clerical error where the amounts for the costs and the amounts for the attorneys’ fees were transposed. The motion will be granted.