Once a judgment is entered, trial courts lose jurisdiction to set aside or amend the judgment except in accordance with statutory procedures. APRI Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 176, 182; Rochin v. Pat Johnson Mfg. Co. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.

Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 473(d), “[t]he 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.” Code of Civ. Proc., § 473(d).

That is, courts have inherent powers to correct judgments by a nunc pro tunc order where there has been clerical error by the clerk or by the judge himself, or where some provision of, or omission from, order or judgment was due to inadvertence, or mistake of court. Lane v. Super. Ct. of Siskiyou Cty. (1950) 98 Cal App 2d 165, 219. This includes clerical errors when made by an attorney who drafts the judgment. See In re Marriage of Kaufman (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 147, 151.

“Clerical error, however, is to be distinguished from judicial error which cannot be corrected by amendment.” In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 702, 705. While a trial court may correct clerical errors and misprisions in a judgment, it cannot amend a judgment once entered, if the error to be corrected is a judicial one, for instance if it embodies an intentional action of the court even though legally erroneous. Kamper v. Mark Hopkins, Inc. (1947) 78 Cal App 2d 885.

“The distinction between clerical error and judicial error is whether the error was made in rendering the judgment, or in recording the judgment rendered.” In re Candelario, supra, 3 Cal. 3d at 705; Smith v. Smith (1952) 115 Cal.App.2d 92, 99. “The distinction between a ‘clerical’ error and a ‘judicial’ one does not depend so much upon the person making the error as upon whether it was the deliberate result of judicial reasoning and determination.” Smith v. Smith (1952) 115 Cal.App.2d 92, 99. Unless the challenged portion of the judgment was entered inadvertently, a judicial error cannot be changed post judgment under the guise of correction of clerical error.” Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, supra, 135 Cal. App. 4th at 1144.

A motion to amend judgment may also be filed under Code of Civ. Proc., § 187, which states: “[w]hen jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this code.”

With this, “[t]he court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion to amend a judgment, but may rule on the motion based solely on declarations and other written evidence.” Highland Springs Conference & Training Center v. City of Banning (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 267, 280. “In the interests of justice, the ‘greatest liberality is to be encouraged’ in the allowance of amendments brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 187.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Weinberg (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1, 7.

As California courts have recognized, this includes the power to amend a judgment against a corporation (or other entity) to add as a judgment debtor the entity's nonparty “alter ego” who controlled the underlying litigation. “Amendment of a judgment to add an alter ego is an equitable procedure based on the theory that the court is not amending the judgment to add a new defendant but is merely inserting the correct name of the real defendant. In addition, even if all the formal elements necessary to establish alter ego liability are not present, an unnamed party may be included as a judgment debtor if the equities overwhelmingly favor the amendment and it is necessary to prevent an injustice.” Carolina Casualty Insurance Company v. L.M. Ross Law Group, LLP (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1188-1189

“In order to prevail in a motion to add judgment debtors, [the judgment creditor] must show that

1. the parties to be added as judgment debtors had control of the underlying litigation and were virtually represented in that proceeding;
2. there is such a unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the entity and the owners no longer exist; and
3. an inequitable result will follow if the acts are treated as those of the entity alone.”

Relentless Air Racing, LLC v. Airborne Turbine Ltd. Partnership (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 811, 815-816.

The moving party has the burden of proving the facts essential to the granting of the motion by a preponderance of the evidence. Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1017, 81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 896.

In determining whether there is an alter ego relationship, “[n]o single factor is determinative, and instead a court must examine all the circumstances to determine whether to apply the doctrine....” Zoran Corp. v. Chen (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 799, 811-812. However, “[i]n California, two conditions must be met before the alter ego doctrine will be invoked. First, there must be such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its equitable owner that the separate personalities of the corporation and the shareholder do not in reality exist. Second, there must be an inequitable result if the acts in question are treated as those of the corporation alone.” Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App 4th 523, 538.

“The decision to grant an amendment in such circumstances lies in the sound discretion of the trial court.” Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486, 508. “The trial court's decision to amend a judgment to add a judgment debtor is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Factual findings necessary to the court's decision are reviewed to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence.” Carolina Casualty, 212 Cal.App.4th at 1189.

In reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence, we ask only whether there is “evidence that a rational trier of fact could find to be reasonable, credible, and of solid value . . . to support the finding” and do so while “view[ing] the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding.” San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San Diego (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 736, 740.