ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS INVESTMENTS LLC vs PETERSON

24CV000578: ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS INVESTMENTS LLC vs PETERSON 08/19/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Amending Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line for Department 8C at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

24CV000578: ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS INVESTMENTS LLC vs PETERSON 08/19/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Amending Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc in Department 8C

ID: 16039062174

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Plaintiff Absolute Resolutions Investments, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to amend judgment nunc pro tunc is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

In this debt collection action, a default judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant in pro per Christopher Peterson (“Defendant”) on February 6, 2026. The judgment awards $11,859.79 in damages and $443.55 in costs for a total judgment amount of $12,303.34.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV000578: ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS INVESTMENTS LLC vs PETERSON 08/19/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Amending Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc in Department 8C

Plaintiff’s counsel declares that the costs amount was inadvertently overstated by $145.00. (Kidd Decl., ¶ 3.) Thus, the costs awarded in the judgment should be $298.55, thereby lowering the total judgment amount to $12,158.34. (Kidd Decl., ¶ 4.)

Code of Civil Procedure 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.” “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.” (George v.

Bekins Van & Storage Co. (1948) 83 Cal.App.2d 478, 480-481.) A trial court’s authority to correct clerical errors in its judgments applies even to errors affecting the amount of the judgment so long as it is clear that the errors is clerical and was not the result of the exercise of judicial discretion. (Hennefer v. Butcher (1986) 182 Cal.App.2d 492, 506-507 [trial court could correct a $50,000 mathematical error that was clearly contrary to the judge’s findings at trial].) The authority to correct a clerical error in a judgment nunc pro tunc may be exercised at any time. (Nathanson v.

Murphy (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 462, 470.)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration establishes that the costs amount, and thus the total judgment amount, were inadvertently overstated by $145.00. Since this is a clerical error, it may be corrected pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d) and the Court’s inherent authority to correct clerical errors in its judgment nunc pro tunc. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

The Court will sign the proposed order and proposed judgment submitted with the moving papers.