PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR NUNC PRO TUNC RELIEF
Matter on Calendar for Monday, August 11, 2025, Line 1, PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR NUNC PRO TUNC RELIEF.
Judgment creditor Gary Poon applied ex parte for an order concerning his attempt to renew his judgment by the statutory deadline of July 7, 2025. The court set the matter for hearing and gave judgment debtor Gordon Poon the opportunity to brief his opposition. The court now grants the requested relief.
The judgment was originally entered in November 2005. Gary Poon renewed it on July 6, 2015. On July 2, 2025, Gary Poon sought to again renew it and made a series of attempts but had difficulty filing it because of errors the clerk of the court identified in the document. The filing was ultimately rejected on July 8, past the deadline for renewal.
Code of Civil Procedure section 683.140 states: "The application for renewal of the judgment shall be executed under oath and shall include all of the following: "(a) The title of the court where the judgment is entered and the cause and number of the action. "(b) The date of entry of the judgment and of any renewals of the judgment and where entered in the records of the court. "(c) The name and address of the judgment creditor and the name and last known address of the judgment debtor. . . . "(d) In the case of a money judgment, the information necessary to compute the amount of the judgment as renewed. . . ."
The application for renewal attached as Exhibit A to the Peng Declaration includes all of the statutorily required information. The clerk of the court therefore had a ministerial duty to accept it for filing and erred in failing to do so. (See Code Civ. Proc., section 683.150, subd. (a); Jonathan Neil & Associates, Inc. v. Jones (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1487.)
Because the error was the court's and not the judgment creditor's, the court does not address the judgment debtor's arguments that there is no relief from attorney error in this situation. The court orders the clerk to file the renewed judgment attached as Exhibit A to the Peng declaration nunc pro tunc as of July 7, 2025.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
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?”
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/CVA) | |