Diamond PEO v. Accurate Connections CA4/3

Filed 1/8/26 Diamond PEO v. Accurate Connections CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

DIAMOND PEO, LLC, G064290

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019- 01082775) v. OPINION ACCURATE CONNECTIONS, LLC,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Theodore R. Howard, Judge. Affirmed. Motion to dismiss denied. Motion for sanctions denied. Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye & Adreani, Michael B. Adreani, Joseph C. Gjonola and Laura H. Park for Appellant. Law Office of Drew Petersen and Gordon Andrew Petersen for Respondent.

Plaintiff Diamond PEO, LLC, appeals from a judgment awarding attorney fees to defendant Accurate Connections, LLC, pursuant to Code of 1 Civil Procedure section 998. Diamond contends it was entitled to obtain a more favorable judgment than the section 998 offer because the trial court should have calculated prejudgment interest at seven percent instead of three percent. But Diamond submitted two stipulated judgments to the court calling for three percent interest before suddenly submitting a new judgment calling for seven percent interest. By awarding interest at three percent, the court impliedly found signing the seven percent judgment was clerical error. We see no abuse of discretion in that decision and affirm. FACTS Diamond sued Accurate for breaching a promissory note that required Diamond to repay $20,000 “with interest accruing on the unpaid balance at a rate of 3 percent (%) per annum . . . .” If Accurate “fail[ed] to pay the note in-full . . . , [the] unpaid principal [would] accrue interest at the maximum rate allowed by law, until [Accurate] [wa]s no longer in default.” Accurate made an offer to compromise the dispute pursuant to section 998 for $20,665. Diamond did not accept the offer. The parties ultimately resolved their dispute. Diamond drafted a proposed judgment, got Accurate to approve it as to form, and submitted it to the court. In its opening brief, Diamond calls this a “stipulated judgment.” It called for prejudgment “Interest at 3%”: