Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union vs Jaime Trujillo

Case Number

24CV02512

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 07/07/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion for Order to Amend Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc

Tentative Ruling

Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union v. Jaime Trujillo 

Case No. 24CV02512

           

Hearing Date:  July 7, 2025                                                    

HEARING:              Motion for Order Amending Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc

                                   

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union:

                             Laura M. D’Anna, Patenaude & Felix, A.P.C.

                             For Defendant Jaime Trujillo: In pro per  

TENTATIVE RULING:  The motion of plaintiff Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union for an order amending the judgment nunc pro tunc is denied.  

Background:

Plaintiff Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union, as the assignee of a borrower agreement and promissory note relating to the issuance of a credit card, filed this breach of written contract action against defendant Jaime Trujillo on May 6, 2024. Defendant failed to answer, and a default judgment was entered on September 17, 2024, for $9,137.06.

Plaintiff now states that its law firm mistakenly filed the request for default judgment with plaintiff’s name identified as Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union. Plaintiff further states that the correct name for the plaintiff in this action is Fasanara Apex I. Plaintiff asserts that the judgment contains a clerical error, and requests that the judgment be amended to reflect the correct name of the plaintiff, Fasanara Apex I. Plaintiff requests that this amendment be entered nunc pro tunc pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d).

Analysis:

A trial court has power either on motion of a party or sua sponte to correct clerical mistakes in its judgment so as to conform to the judgment directed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d).) Where “clerical error” is shown, the judgment is corrected nunc pro tunc, and the correction dates back to when the judgment was entered. (Ames v. Paley (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 668, 673.)

The term “clerical error” refers to inadvertent errors in entering or recording the judgment rather than in rendering the judgment (i.e., a judicial error). (In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705.) “[C]lerical error results when the order or judgment misstates the court’s actual intent (i.e., error in recording the judgment rendered), and judicial error results when the order or judgment entered was intended, even though based on an error of law (i.e., error in rendering the judgment).” (Burch v. CertainTeed Corp. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 341, 346.)

Unless the challenged portion of a judgment was entered inadvertently, it cannot be changed under the guise of correction of clerical error. (Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1144.)

For purposes of judicial error, as distinguished from clerical error, the test is simply whether the challenged judgment was made or entered advertently. (Bowden v. Green (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 65, 71.) As the court stated in Lankton v. Superior Court (1936) 5 Cal.2d 694, 696: “The judgment in this case was the identical judgment which the trial court intended to render. There was no mistake in its entry, and it expressed in apt and definite terms the conclusion at which the trial court arrived during the trial of the action. If the court misconstrued the evidence before it, or misapplied the law applicable to the facts disclosed by the evidence, or was even misled by counsel, such an error was in no sense a clerical error which could thereafter be corrected by the court upon its own motion.”

Here, plaintiff’s counsel states that it mistakenly filed the request for default judgment with plaintiff’s name as Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union, and that the correct name of plaintiff should be Fasanara Apex I. Yet, and as plaintiff’s counsel also points out, plaintiff's counsel filed suit in this case identifying Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union as the plaintiff in the compliant. All subsequent filings also identified this entity as the plaintiff in this action. Fasanara Apex I was not identified as the proper plaintiff in any filings prior to now. Moreover, plaintiff’s instant motion does not explain what relationship, if any, Fasanara Apex I has to the named plaintiff, Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union.

Because the judgment entered was the judgment the named plaintiff requested upon application to be entered, any error in the judgment such as its failure to reflect the correct plaintiff, was judicial, not clerical. Section 473, subdivision (d) is not an appropriate mechanism to remedy the error here. (Machado v. Myers (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 779, 798.) The motion to amend the judgment is therefore denied.