Motion to Amend Judgment
that you [paid [sic] to Jams that you have npt [sic] recpovered [sic]. That deduction of [redacted] is not acceptable.” (Ibid.)
Thus, there is no evidence that the parties ever came to an agreement as to whether the arbitration fees would be deducted from the settlement payment.
Nor is there any evidence that the parties agreed in writing that the court would retain jurisdiction pursuant to Section 664.6.
The court will deny the motion.
The court clerk shall give notice of this ruling.
9 Schifeler vs. Motion to Transfer Venue Neogenomics Laboratories Defendants Monterey Pathologists Medical Group’s and Jeffrey Thomas Keating, M.D.’s Motion to Transfer Venue to Monterey County Superior Court is taken OFF CALENDAR, pursuant to the court’s orders issued May 30-2025- 5, 2026 (ROA #60), and Defendant Monterey Pathologists Medical Group 01483801 and Jeffrey Thomas Keating, M.D.’s Notice of Taking Motion to Transfer Venue to Monterey County Superior Court Off Calendar filed April 30, 2026 (ROA #56).
10 Alliance Motion to Amend Judgment Funding Group vs. Good Tree Plaintiff Alliance Funding Group’s Motion to Correct Typographical Erro Entertainment and Amend Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc is GRANTED. LLC The court will issue the proposed Judgment on Stipulation submitted by Plaintiff Alliance Funding Group. (See ROA #83.) 30-2022- 01293136 Pending Motion
Plaintiff Alliance Funding Group moves to correct a typographical error and amend the Judgment entered on June 2, 2025 nunc pro tunc.
Standard to Amend Judgment
“The general rule is that once a judgment has been entered, the trial court loses its unrestricted power to change that judgment.” (Craven v. Crout (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 779, 782.)
However, there is an exception whereby the court may “correct clerical errors in a judgment which has been entered.” (Ibid.)
Specifically, Civil Procedure Code section 473(d) provides:
The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or on its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed. . . .
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?”
This statute codifies what has been recognized as a trial court’s inherent authority to correct an order or judgment by a nunc pro tunc order at any time. (See Estate of Goldberg (1938) 10 Cal.2d 709, 717.)
To correct clerical errors in an existing order or judgment, clarifying words may added, (Ames v. Paley (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 668, 674) and extraneous words may be removed, (Estate of Careaga (1964) 61 Cal.2d 471, 474–475, 478).
However, the court “may not amend such a judgment to substantially modify it or materially alter the rights of the parties under its authority to correct clerical error.” (Craven v. Crout, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 782.)
Proposed Amendment to Judgment
On June 2, 2025, the Court entered the Judgment on Stipulation (Judgment) in accordance with the stipulation of Plaintiff and Defendants Frank Corey Oliver and Talisha Marie Oliver aka Talisha Henderson (Defendants). (See ROA #66.)
Paragraph 5 of the Judgment pertains to the party in favor of whom judgment is entered. (See id., ¶ 5.)
Through checked boxes, the Judgment indicates that judgment was entered “for plaintiff . . . ALLIANCE FUNDING GROUP” and “for defendant . . . FRANK COREY OLIVER and TALISHA MARIE OLIVER aka TALISHA HENDERSON.” (See ibid.)
Plaintiff submits evidence that judgment should have been entered for Plaintiff only and that the checked box “for defendant” in Paragraph 5 was a typographical error. (See Decl. of Laurel Adams, ¶ 4.) Plaintiff also presented evidence that this was the agreement of the parties. (See id., Exh. 1.)
Defendants have not filed an opposition or responded to the motion, and thus, have waived any arguments against the motion. (See Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 288 [failure to address or oppose issue in motion constitutes waiver of that issue]; see DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 566 [holding that failure to challenge contention in brief results in the concession on that issue].)
Therefore, the court will grant the motion to amend the judgment.
Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.