Motion for Reconsideration
or due to inadvertence of the court. The term ‘clerical error’ covers all errors, mistakes, or omissions which are not the result of the exercise of the judicial function. If an error, mistake, or omission is the result of inadvertence, but for which a different judgment would have been rendered, the error is clerical and the judgment may be corrected to correspond with what it would have been but for the inadvertence. [Citations.] The court has inherent power to correct such errors. This power extends to striking out findings of fact and conclusions of law and a judgment and substituting wholly different findings of fact and conclusions of law and judgment.
In correcting a clerical error or mistake the trial judge may give effect to facts within his personal knowledge and to his recollection. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) Plaintiff has not provided authority that this court has the power to change the name of the Plaintiff after entry of judgment.
3. Vacate Judgment Alternatively, Plaintiff requests that if this court finds it does not have the power to make the requested correction, the default judgment entered against Defendant be vacated and set aside so that Plaintiff can amend the complaint to state Plaintiff’s correct name. This request is GRANTED.
4.
Conclusion
The default judgment entered against Defendant on January 5, 2023, against Defendant Heather Ludloff aka Heather Ann Ludloff in the amount of $10,551.46 is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling.
5. SCV-267521, The Design Build Company, LLC v. De Arkos
(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. JANE GASKELL)
IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.
17. PLEASE USE DEPT. 17’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).
Defendant Eduardo De Arkos (“De Arkos”) moves for reconsideration of the order granting Cross-Defendant Robert Auger’s Memorandum of Costs. The motion is DENIED.
The trial in this action commenced on November 15, 2024, and concluded on January 31, 2025. Plaintiff Design Build Company, LLC, did not appear. Therefore, on March 18, 2025, this court entered judgment in favor of De Arkos against the Design Build Company, LLC, on its complaint. Trial proceeded on De Arkos’s Cross-Complaint. The jury determined that Cross- Defendants Design Build Company, LLC, Robert Brian Auger, and John William Currier were entitled to judgment against De Arkos on his Cross-Complaint. Accordingly, judgment was entered that Cross-Defendants were not liable to De Arkos and that they could recover costs of suit. On July 24, 2025, Auger filed a Memorandum of Costs seeking $32,690.00 which was awarded in the Judgment After Jury Trial entered on January 20, 2026.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
A motion for reconsideration is brought pursuant to CCP section 1008, which provides at subsection (a): “When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when 7
and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.”
In his memorandum, De Arkos reasserts the same arguments that have been raised numerous times in various motions to tax costs and for attorney fees. De Arkos asserts that he was the prevailing party in this action. He was the prevailing party on the complaint but not on his Cross- Complaint wherein he sued cross-defendant Auger. Auger was not a defendant to the complaint. As to Auger, De Arkos is not the prevailing party. De Arkos also argues that none of the Cross-Defendants received relief from the stay in the bankruptcy case. The Bankruptcy Order pertains to The Design Build Co., LLC—not defendant Auger. Therefore, it is inapplicable to Auger’s cost recovery against De Arkos. De Arkos makes several additional arguments that have no relevancy to Auger’s recovery of costs or this motion.
A court acts in excess of jurisdiction when it grants a motion to reconsider that is not based upon “new or different facts, circumstances, or law.” (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) De Arkos has not demonstrated the existence of new or different facts, circumstances, or law. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. The court’s minute order shall constitute the order of the court.
6. SCV-267534, Garcia v. Rustic Bakery, Inc.
(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. DANA B. SIMONDS)
IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.
18. PLEASE USE DEPT. 18’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).
This matter is on calendar for final compliance regarding distribution of funds from the settlement of this action. On June 11, 2025, this court granted Plaintiffs Jeferson Garcia, Wilson Garcia and Alicia Rueda de Lara (“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Final Approval of Class and PAGA Action Settlement. The Gross Settlement Amount to be paid under the Settlement Agreement is $4,000,000. From this amount, Class Counsel collectively sought an award of attorney fees of $1,400,000, litigation expenses of $56,847.46, Enhancement Award for each Plaintiff of $15,000.00, totaling $45,000.00, and $18,950 to Phoenix Settlement Administrators (“Phoenix”) as the Settlement Administrator.
On February 13, 2026, the Case Manager at Phoenix, Kevin Lee, filed a declaration describing the distribution of the settlement funds. He states that on June 24, 2025, Phoenix received an EIN from the IRS and opened a bank account through Banc of California. (Lee decl., ¶3.) The account was titled Garcia, et al. v. Rustic Bakery, Inc., et al., also known as the Qualified Settlement Fund (“QSF”). (Ibid.) On September 9, 2025, Defendants deposited the total amount of $4,000,000.00 into the QSF. (Id., ¶4.) On November 24, 2025, Phoenix issued and mailed checks from the QSF to each Settlement Class Member (totaling $2,250,722.21), Class Counsel ($1,400,000.00 for attorneys’ fees and $56,847.46 for attorneys’ costs), Enhancement Payments for $15,000.00 each (totaling $45,000.00), Phoenix ($18,950.00) and the LWDA ($150,000.00). (Id. ¶5.)
The check-cashing period for Settlement Class Members expired on May 23, 2026, which will be one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date Individual Settlement Payment checks were issued. (Id., ¶6.) As of the date of the Lee declaration, one thousand eighty-six (1,086) checks totaling $418,123.35 remain uncashed. (Id., ¶7.) Lee states that, pursuant to the Settlement, funds from 8