Portfolio Recovery Associates, Llc Vs. Fernando Peralta, Sr.

MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT ON CVCO2306079 CITIBANK VS FUENTEZ COMPLAINT FOR COLLECTIONS BY LORETTA T FUENTEZ Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling will be issued.

Matter on the Law and Motion Calendar for Friday, July 19, 2024, Line 12. CROSS DEFENDANT STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC, CHRISTOPHER RUH AND GOLDSMITH & HULL, APC's MOTION TO STRIKE 1ST Amended CROSS COMPLAINT. Continued to August 2, 2024. The opposing party shall immediately provide courtesy copies of the opposition with a cover letter reflecting the new hearing date. (SF Local Rule 2.7B.) Friday's Law & Motion Calendar will be called out of Dept. 301. Anyone intending to appear in person should report to Dept. 301. However, anyone intending to appear remotely should use the regular Zoom information for Dept. 302's Law & Motion Calendar for 9:30 a.m. 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. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@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. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion 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/RCE)

Case Number: 23TRCV03914 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: P Application for Writ of Possession The court considered the moving papers. No opposition has been received. RULING The application for writ of possession is GRANTED. BACKGROUND On November 27, 2023, plaintiff Ally Bank (Ally) filed a complaint against defendant Charhonda L. Bridges aka Charhonda Bridges (Bridges). The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) claim and delivery of personal property; and (2) money due on a contract. The complaint alleges that Ally became the owner of a written contract through written assignment in which Bridges purchased from Plaintiffs assignor a 2018 Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class, and said contract is in defect based on Bridges failure to make payment due and owing on April 11, 2023. On January 18, 2024, Ally filed the instant application for writ of possession relating the subject vehicle. On June 12, 2024, Ally filed proof of substitute service of the summons, complaint and instant application for writ of possession. LEGAL STANDARD Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, the plaintiff may apply pursuant to this chapter for a writ of possession by filing a written application for the writ with the court in which the action is brought. (Code Civ. Proc. § 512.010(a).) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 512.010(b), the application must be submitted under oath and include: (1) A showing of the basis of the plaintiff's claim and that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property claimed. If the basis of the plaintiff's claim is a written instrument, a copy of the instrument shall be attached. (2) A showing that the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant, of the manner in which the defendant came into possession of the property, and, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the reason for the detention. (3) A particular description of the property and a statement of its value. (4) A statement, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the location of the property and, if the property, or some part of it, is within a private place which may have to be entered to take possession, a showing that there is probable cause to believe that such property is located there. (5) A statement that the property has not been taken for a tax, assessment, or fine, pursuant to a statute; or seized under an execution against the property of the plaintiff; or, if so seized, that it is by statute exempt from such seizure. Before the hearing on the Writ of Possession, the defendant must be served with (1) a copy of the summons and complaint; (2) a Notice of Application and Hearing; and (3) a copy of the application and any affidavit in support thereof. (Code Civ. Proc. § 512.030.) The writ will be issued if the court finds that the plaintiff's claim is probably valid and the other requirements for issuing the writ are established. (Code Civ. Proc. § 512.040(b).) A claim has probable validity where it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will obtain a judgment against the defendant on that claim. (Code Civ. Proc. § 511.090.) DISCUSSION A. Procedural Requirements Allys proof of service, filed on June 12, 2024, indicate that Bridges was served with the requisite documents by substitute service on June 2, 2024. The proofs of service refer to service of the summons, complaint, notice of application and hearing, application for writ of possession, and other related documents. It is noted that Bridges has not filed an opposition to the instant application. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Ally has complied with the service requirement. (Code Civ. Proc. § 512.030.) Additionally, upon review of the application, the Court finds that Ally has complied with the procedural requirements under Code of Civil Procedure § 512.010(b). B. Basis of Plaintiffs Claim The instant application and complaint are apparently based on cause of action for claim and delivery. (See Applications; Memoranda at pg. 2.) In order to be entitled to a writ of possession, a plaintiff must demonstrate that they are entitled to possess the subject property. (Code Civ. Proc. §512.010(b)(1).) Where an application is based on a cause of action claim and deliver, the Plaintiff here must establish: (1) a right to immediate possession of the Vehicle; and (2) the wrongful detention of the Vehicle by the defendants. (Law v. Heiniger (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d Supp. 898, 899; Home Payment Jewelry Co. v. Smith (1914) 24 Cal.App. 486, 488.) In order to meet this burden, it is improper for a plaintiff to rely solely on a verified complaint. (See 6 Witkin, California Procedure, (5th ed. 2008) §255, pg. 203.) The application may be supported by declarations and/or a verified complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 516.030.) The declarations or complaint must set forth admissible evidence except where expressly permitted to be shown on information and belief. (Id.) Here, Ally solely relies upon the Declaration of James Singleton, who is the authorized representative for Ally and oversees Bridges account with respect to the subject vehicle. (App., Singleton Decl. ¶ 1.) Mr. Singleton attests that Ally has right to immediate possession of the subject vehicle for the following reasons. First, Ally is the assignee of sales contract, and the contract states that the right to immediate possession of the subject vehicle is permitted upon a default of any provision within the contract. (Id. ¶ 5, Exh. A.) Second, Ally is listed as a lienholder with first priority on the subject vehicles title. (Id., Ehx. B.) Also, Mr. Singleton attests that Bridges has wrongfully detained the subject vehicle for her failure to make necessary payments that were due and owing on April 11, 2023 in the amount of $1,327.03, and Bridges continues to be in breach of the contract for her failure to make payments. (Id. ¶ 6.) Accordingly, the Court finds that Ally has satisfied its evidentiary burden to warrant the requested relief. Based on the foregoing, the application for writ of possession is GRANTED. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

SIERRA CENTRAL CREDIT UNION VS. BOWEN Case Number: 23CVG-00603 This matter is on calendar for confirmation of Judgment. The Court’s June 5, 2024 Ruling after trial ordered Defendant to submit a proposed judgment for the Court’s signature. No proposed judgment has been filed. No status report has been filed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., VS. CASTRO Case Number: 23CVG-00362 Tentative Ruling on Motion for Terminating Sanctions: Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. moves for terminating sanctions by striking Defendant Vincent Castro’s answer. Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $1,572.75 for each motion. Procedural Defect: As a procedural matter, this motion was served both via mail and email on May 9, 2024, and set for a hearing date of June 7, 2024. CCP § 1005(b) requires all moving papers be served 16 court days before the hearing. This notice period is extended by five calendar days if the motion is served by mail. Id. For service by email, the notice period is extended by two court days. CCP § 1010.6(a)(3). This timeframe is calculated by counting backwards from the hearing date but excluding the hearing date. CCP § 12c. Starting with the June 7, 2024, hearing date and counting backwards 16 court days (excluding the Court holiday of May 27, 2024) then five calendar days for out of state mailing this matter should have been served by mail no later than, May 4, 2024. For email the last day to serve the motion was April 24, 2024. The motion was served on May 7, 2024, and was untimely under either calculation. Based on insufficient statutory notice, the motion is denied. Merits of Motion: Even if the motion had been timely noticed, terminating sanctions are not warranted. Terminating sanctions are a “drastic penalty and should be used sparingly.” Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604. A terminating sanction should not generally be imposed by the court until less severe sanctions have been attempted and were unsuccessful. Id. No justification has been provided as to why terminating sanctions are appropriate in this context instead of lesser evidentiary or issue sanctions. Without additional evidence, terminating sanctions would be premature. The motion is DENIED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court which will be modified to reflect the denial. Review Hearing: This matter is also on calendar for review regarding trial re-setting. The Court designates this matter as a Plan II case and intends on setting it for trial no later than October 15, 2024. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to discuss available trial dates.

ALLY BANK VS KN APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CVRI2400162 EXPRESS INC. POSSESSION - CLAIM AND DELIVERY Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling.

Case Number: 23CHCV00539 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: F43 Dept. F43 Date: 7-16-24 Case #23CHCV00539, American Express National Bank vs. Anahit Khrimian, et al. Trial Date: 11-4-24 SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff American Express National Bank RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed. RELIEF REQUESTED Motion for Summary Judgment RULING : Motion is granted. SUMMARY OF ACTION Plaintiff American Express National Bank (Plaintiff) filed this action on February 27, 2023. Plaintiff alleged a cause of action of Common Counts for an open book account and an account stated against Defendants Anahit Khrimian and St. Jacob Hospice, Inc. (Defendants). This is a credit card collections case wherein Defendants opened an American Express credit card on June 25, 2015. (UMF 1.) In using the card, Defendants were bound by the terms of the cardmember agreement. (UMF 2, 4.) Defendants used the card to pay for goods and services. (UMF 5.) Plaintiff maintained an open book account for the card in the form of billing statements. (UMF 8.) Pursuant to the cardmember agreement and the most recent billing statement, a balance of $150,397.63 is now due on the account. (UMF 11; Touhidi Decl., Ex. B.) Based on the amount due on the account, Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on its complaint for an open book account and an account stated. Plaintiff filed its motion for summary judgment on January 3, 2024. No opposition has been filed. ANALYSIS The purpose of a motion for summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute. ( Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ( Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) The pleadings frame the issues for motions, since it is those allegations to which the motion must respond. ( Citation. ) ( Scolinos v. Kolts (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 635, 640-641; FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 382-383; Jordan-Lyon Prods., LTD. v. Cineplex Odeon Corp. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1472. ) On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact. ( Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established. (CCP § 437c(p)(2).) Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. ( Ibid .) Account Stated Plaintiff argues that summary judgment should be granted in its favor on the Account Stated cause of action because Plaintiff issued and submitted monthly billing statements on the account to Defendants and there are no unresolved disputes on the account. An account stated is an agreement, based on prior transactions between the parties, that all items of the account are true and that the balance struck is due and owing from one party to the other. ( Trafton v. Youngblood (1968) 68 Cal.2d 17, 25.) In order to establish an account stated, [i]t must appear that at the time of the statement an indebtedness from one party to other existed, that a balance was then struck and agreed to be the correct sum owing from the debtor to the creditor, and that the debtor expressly or impliedly promised to pay to the creditor the amount thus determined to be owing. ( H. Russell Taylors Fire Protection Service, Inc. v. Coca Cola Bottling Corp. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 711, 726-727.) Assent may be expressly given or implied by the circumstances or the conduct of the debtor including failing to object. ( Trafton , supra , 68 Cal.2d at 25.) In addition, partial payment of a debt without objection and without otherwise indicating non-recognition of the validity of the debt is proof of the validity of the debt. ( Price v. Wells Fargo Bank (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 465, 480.) Thus, if a statement is rendered and the debtor fails to object or reply within a reasonable time, the law implies an agreement that the account is correct as rendered. ( Maggio Inc. v. Neal (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d at 752-753.) Plaintiff argues that it can establish an account stated because it mailed billing statements to Defendants every month, and Defendants did not dispute the balance on the statements. In this case, there is a cardmember agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants. (UMF 14.) The cardmember agreement indicated that Defendants were required to make regular monthly payments on the account. (UMF 18.) Each month, Plaintiff mailed an account statement to Defendants at the address that Defendants provided to Plaintiff, and the account statement accurately reflected the amount that Defendants owed on the account. (UMF 20.) Finally, the account is considered to be truly stated because there are no unresolved disputes on the account. (UMF 22; see Maggio Inc. , supra , 196 Cal.App.3d at 752-753 (finding that the law implies an agreement that an account is truly stated when there are no outstanding disputes on the account).) Based on the foregoing and the evidence submitted by Plaintiff, Plaintiff has adequately stated a claim for an account stated, and there are no triable issues of material fact for this cause of action. Therefore, Plaintiff prevails as a matter of law on Plaintiffs claim for account stated. Plaintiffs motion is granted for this claim. Open Book Account Plaintiff argues that summary judgment should be granted in its favor on the Open Book Account cause of action because there is a book account as evidenced by detailed statements kept by Plaintiff. CCP § 337a(a) defines a book account as a detailed statement which constitutes the principal record of one or more transactions between a debtor and creditor arising out of a contract ...and show the debits and credits in connection therewith, and against whom and in favor of whom entries are made, is entered in the regular course of business as conducted by such creditor ..., and is kept in a reasonably permanent form and manner and is (1) in a bound book, or (2) on a sheet or sheets fastened in a book or to a backing but detachable therefrom, or (3) on a card or cards of a permanent character, or is kept in any other reasonably permanent form and manner. The California Supreme Court has explained it as follows: a book account is a detailed statement of debit/credit transactions kept by a creditor in the regular course of business, and in a reasonably permanent manner. ( Reigelsperger v. Siller (2007) 40 Cal.4th 574, 579, fn. 5.) Courts construe CCP § 337a broadly and have adopted a liberal approach in defining the term book account. ( Costerisan v. DeLong (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 768, 770-771 (Adverting to the broad language of section 337a of the Code of Civil Procedure, kept in any other reasonably permanent form and manner, it seems manifest that the Legislature intended to adopt the liberal approach&in defining the term book account.).) In Costerisan v. DeLong , the Court of Appeal found that ledger sheets kept in an office file cabinet constituted a book account under CCP § 337a. ( Id . at 771.) In that case, the Court of Appeal held that the critical determination was whether the sheets were permanent records and constitute[d] a system of bookkeeping as distinguished from mere private memoranda. ( Id . at 770; see also Fresno Credit Bureau v. Batteate (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 545, 547-548 (holding that one ledger entry was sufficient to support a judgment based on an open book account).) Plaintiffs business records are computerized, and Plaintiff maintained an account of all the credits and debits on Defendants account in the form of billing statements that were stored on its internal network. (UMF 8.) These billing statements constituted an electronic book account that was created and maintained on Plaintiffs secure network. (See Costerisan , supra , 251 Cal.App.2d at 770-771.) Every month Plaintiff mailed billing statements to Defendants (UMF 8), and Defendants had 60 days to submit a dispute for any charges (UMF 9). There are no unresolved disputes on Defendants account (UMF 10.) Because there are no disputes, this means that an open book account has been established. The evidence is undisputed that a book account was established between Plaintiff and Defendants. Accordingly, there are no triable issues of material fact, and Defendants are liable as a matter of law for the open book account under Plaintiffs complaint. Plaintiffs motion is granted for this claim. CONCLUSION The motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety. Damages are to be awarded in the amount of $150,397.63, and costs are to be requested via a memorandum of costs. Plaintiff is ordered to submit a proposed judgment. Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: EC063728 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: X Tentative Ruling Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X HEARING DATE: July 18, 2024 TRIAL DATE: Disposed (8/16/21) CASE: Soni v. Cartograph, Inc. CASE NO.: EC063728 MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE JUDGMENT AND STAY OF EXECUTION AND PROCEEDINGS MOVING PARTY : Plaintiff Surjit P. Soni dba The Soni Law Firm RESPONDING PARTY : Defendants Timothy Tierney and Simplelayers, Inc. f/k/a Cartograph, Inc. SERVICE: Filed on June 14, 2024 OPPOSITION: Filed on July 3, 2024 REPLY: Filed on July 11, 2024 RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff Surjit P. Soni dba The Soni Law Firm seeks an order setting aside and vacating the August 16, 2021 Judgment in this case and all orders issued by Judge Ralph C. Hofer since November 25, 2020. Plaintiff also requests a stay of execution on the judgment in this case until this motion is ruled upon. BACKGROUND On March 18, 2015, Plaintiff Surjit P. Soni dba The Soni Law Firm (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendants Cartograph, Inc., Simplelayers, Inc., Timothy Tierney, and DOES 1-10. The Complaint asserted eight causes of action for: 1. Breach of Contract 2. Quantum Meruit 3. Money Had and Received 4. Book Account 5. Fraudulent Misrepresentation 6. Negligent Misrepresentation 7. Fraudulent Inducement to Enter into Contract 8. Breach of Guaranty On August 16, 2021, this Court entered Judgment in favor of Defendants and awarded attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $334,458.41. On October 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed an appeal as to the August 16, 2021 Judgment. The matter was finally disposed on August 2, 2023, wherein the Court of Appeal affirmed the August 16, 2021 Judgment. On June 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to set aside/vacate judgment and stay of execution and proceedings. On July 3, 2024, Defendants Timothy Tierney and Simplelayers, Inc. f/k/a Cartograph, Inc. (Defendants) filed an opposition. On July 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply. TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff Surjit P. Soni dba The Soni Law Firms Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment and Stay of Execution and Proceedings is DENIED. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 663a, subdivision (a), A party intending to make a motion to set aside and vacate a judgment, as described in Section 663, shall file with the clerk and serve upon the adverse party a notice of his or her intention, designating the grounds upon which the motion will be made, and specifying the particulars in which the legal basis for the decision is not consistent with or supported by the facts, or in which the judgment or decree is not consistent with the special verdict, either: (1) After the decision is rendered and before the entry of judgment&(2) Within 15 days of the date of mailing of notice of entry of judgment by the clerk of the court pursuant to Section 664.5, or service upon him or her by any party of written notice of entry of judgment, or within 180 days after the entry of judgment, whichever is earliest. (Code Civ. Proc., § 663a(a).) A judgment or decree, when based upon a decision by the court, or the special verdict of a jury, may, upon motion of the party aggrieved, be set aside and vacated by the same court, and another and different judgment entered, for either of the following causes, materially affecting the substantial rights of the party and entitling the party to a different judgment: [¶](1) Incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or not supported by the facts; and in such case when the judgment is set aside, the statement of decision shall be amended and corrected. [¶] (2) A judgment or decree not consistent with or not supported by the special verdict. (Code Civ. Proc., § 663.) DISCUSSION Plaintiff moves for an order setting aside and vacating the August 16, 2021 Judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 663a(a)(2). Plaintiff contends all orders issued by Judge Hofer after November 25, 2020 are void and should be vacated pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.4, subdivision (c)(1) because Judge Hofer took inconsistent positions with respect to his relationship with Attorney Jeffrey G. Sheldon in sworn declarations and it impacted his impartiality in this present case. Furthermore, Plaintiff contends Judge Hofer refused to recuse himself from this case when Plaintiff brought a Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.6 Preemptory Challenge and Motion to Disqualify in 2020 on the basis that Judge Hofer was presiding over case involving someone who had extensive litigation against his close and personal friend. Moreover, Plaintiff contends only after appeal and affirmance of his rulings on attorney fee and costs motions did Judge Hofer voluntarily recuse himself in the interest of justice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.1, subdivision (a)(6)(A)(i). As such, Plaintiff argues Judge Hofer must be deemed disqualified pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.6. Lastly, Plaintiff argues Judge Hofer should not have ruled on the sufficiency of his Statement of Disqualification pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.3, subdivision (5)(c)(5). By contrast, Defendants argue Plaintiff fails to disclose the dispute between him and Attorney Sheldon occurred thirteen (13) years ago. Defendants also argue there is no evidence that Judge Hofer ever discussed Plaintiff with his friend. Similarly, Defendants contend in Judge Hofers order striking Plaintiffs Ex Parte Application seeking disqualification, he stated he had a past and casual relationship with Attorney Sheldon. On the other hand, Defendants contend Judge Hofers minute order recusing himself from the case, Siguo Su v. Sherry Lin, et. al. (Case No. 19GDCV00656) on July 28, 2020, states he was a close and personal friend of Jeffrey G. Sheridan and his family, so he appears to be discussing a different person than Attorney Sheldon. Likewise, Defendants assert there is no basis other than pure speculation to assume Judge Hofer recused himself due to a relationship with Attorney Sheldon, let alone create doubt as to his impartiality in handling this case. Moreover, Defendants argue Plaintiffs Ex Parte Application for disqualification raised no grounds for disqualification and was untimely, thus Judge Hofers order striking the application were proper under Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.4, subdivision (b). Additionally, Defendants contend the instant motion is untimely because it was filed outside the fifteen (15) day deadline. Finally, Defendants argue to the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of Judge Hofers 2020 order striking the Ex Parte Application, it fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008. Here, the Court finds that the instant motion fails on both procedural and substantive grounds discussed more thoroughly below. First, Plaintiff seeks to set aside and vacate the August 16, 2021 Judgement. However, the Notice of Entry of Judgment was served on Plaintiffs counsel of record on August 25, 2021. (Soni Decl., ¶19n, 19r, Exs. 14, 18.) Thus, Plaintiff had until September 16, 2021 to seek to set aside or vacate the August 16, 2021 Judgment because it would have been fifteen (15) days from the service of the notice of entry. Further, the Court had until December 15, 2021 to move to set aside or vacate the judgment on its own pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 663a, subdivision (b). Next, the instant motion does not raise any arguments to suggest the August 16, 2021 is based on an incorrect legal conclusion or erroneous judgment inconsistent with the facts of this case. Neither does the motion raise any arguments indicating the judgment is inconsistent with a special verdict. Although Defendants do not make this argument, the case law supporting a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 663a stand for the proposition that such motion may only be brought on the grounds set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Section 663. In Garibotti v. Hinkle (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 470, the court held A motion to vacate under section 663 may only be brought when the trial judge draws an incorrect legal conclusion or renders an erroneous judgment upon the facts found by it to exist. ( Garibotti v. Hinkle (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 470, 477.) However, [i]n ruling on a motion to vacate the judgment the court cannot in any way change any finding of fact. ( Id. ) Moreover, Plaintiff cites to no other legal authority that would allow this Court to set aside or vacate the August 16, 2021 and other orders issued by Judge Hofer, let alone on the basis raised in the present motion, i.e., Judge Hofers alleged inconsistent statements concerning his relationship Attorney Sheldon and his voluntarily recusal due to purported impartiality. Code of Civil Procedure 170.4, subdivision (c)(1), states in pertinent part, If a statement of disqualification is filed after a trial or hearing has commenced by the start of voir dire, by the swearing of the first witness or by the submission of a motion for decision, the judge whose impartiality has been questioned may order the trial or hearing to continue, notwithstanding the filing of the statement of disqualification. The issue of disqualification shall be referred to another judge for decision as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 170.3, and if it is determined that the judge is disqualified, all orders and rulings of the judge found to be disqualified made after the filing of the statement shall be vacated. (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.4(c)(1).) Even though Plaintiff cites this statute in support of his contention that Judge Hofers Judgment and orders are void, there is no indication that Plaintiffs Ex Parte Application was filed under the circumstances set forth in Code of Civil Procedure 170.4, subdivision (c)(1). Last, assuming arguendo that Plaintiff was seeking reconsideration of the order to strike his Ex Parte Application for Disqualification on the basis that Judge Hofers inconsistent statements regarding his relationship with Attorney Sheldon warrants disqualification, the motion does not meet the requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008, subdivision (a), [w]hen an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(a).)¿As it relates to new or different facts, circumstances, or law under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008, subdivision (a), the moving party must provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce that evidence at an earlier time.¿ ( Shiffer v. CBS Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 246, 255.) Furthermore, facts of which the party seeking reconsideration was aware at the time of the original ruling are not new or different. ( In re Marriage of Herr (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468.)¿ In this instant case, Plaintiff does not appear to set forth new or different facts, or arguing that theres been a change in the law, and such motion would be untimely as it would not have been filed within the ten (10) days required under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Surjit P. Soni dba The Soni Law Firms Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment and Stay of Execution and Proceedings is DENIED. MOTION TO CORRECT THE JUDGMENT MOVING PARTY: Defendants Timothy Tierney and Simplelayers, Inc. f/k/a Cartograph, Inc. RESPONDING PARTY : Plaintiff Surjit P. Soni dba The Soni Law Firm SERVICE: Filed on June 20, 2024 OPPOSITION: Filed on July 3, 2024 REPLY: Filed on July 9, 2024 RELIEF REQUESTED Defendants Timothy Tierney and Simplelayers, Inc. f/k/a Cartograph, Inc. seek an order correcting the spelling of Plaintiff Surjit P. Sonis name in the final judgment. BACKGROUND On March 18, 2015, Plaintiff Surjit P. Soni dba The Soni Law Firm (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendants Cartograph, Inc., Simplelayers, Inc., Timothy Tierney, and DOES 1-10. The Complaint asserted eight causes of action for: 1. Breach of Contract 2. Quantum Meruit 3. Money Had and Received 4. Book Account 5. Fraudulent Misrepresentation 6. Negligent Misrepresentation 7. Fraudulent Inducement to Enter into Contract 8. Breach of Guaranty On August 16, 2021, this Court entered Judgment in favor of Defendants and awarded attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $334,458.41. On October 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed an appeal as to the August 16, 2021 Judgment. The matter was finally disposed on August 2, 2023, wherein the Court of Appeal affirmed the August 16, 2021 Judgment. On June 20, 2024, Defendants Timothy Tierney and Simplelayers, Inc. f/k/a Cartograph, Inc. (Defendants) filed the instant motion to correct the judgment. On July 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On July 9, 2024, Defendants filed a reply. TENTATIVE RULING Defendants Timothy Tierney and Simplelayers, Inc. f/k/a Cartograph, Inc.s Motion to Correct the Judgment is GRANTED. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 473, subdivision (a)(1), The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party , or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars ; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(a)(1).) Similarly, 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(d).) Essentially, [a] court of general jurisdiction has the power, after final judgment, and regardless of lapse of time, to correct clerical errors or misprisions in its records, whether made by the clerk, counsel or the court itself , so that the records will conform to and speak the truth. [Citations.] ( Ames v. Paley (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 668, 672.) DISCUSSION Here, Defendants contend there is a clerical error in the Final Judgment entered on August 16, 2021. Specifically, Defendants assert the Final Judgment contains a misspelling of Plaintiff Surjit P. Sonis name in the fourth paragraph on line 17. The fourth paragraph, line 17 spells Plaintiffs first name as Surgit, instead of Surjit. (Weisel Decl., ¶2, Ex. A.) In opposition, Plaintiff argues correction of the Final Judgment is both unnecessary and a wasted exercise because the judgment is void or voidable as a result of Judge Hofers voluntary self-recusal in the interests of justice. As addressed in the tentative for Plaintiffs Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment, Plaintiff fails to raise arguments pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 663 that supports setting aside or vacating the Final Judgment. Furthermore, Plaintiffs contention that Code of Civil Procedure Section 473, subdivision (d) only relates to errors made by the clerk or the Court is incorrect. As cited in the legal standard section of the tentative, California courts have interpreted Code of Civil Procedure Section 473, subdivision (d) to include errors by legal counsel. Thus, Defendants properly seek relief under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473, subdivision (d) in the instant motion. Lastly, Plaintiff does not refute that his first name is misspelled in the Final Judgment. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Defendants Timothy Tierney and Simplelayers, Inc. f/k/a Cartograph, Inc.s Motion to Correct the Judgment is GRANTED. MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES MOVING PARTY: Defendants Timothy Tierney and Simplelayers, Inc. f/k/a Cartograph, Inc. RESPONDING PARTY : Plaintiff Surjit P. Soni dba The Soni Law Firm SERVICE: Filed on September 8, 2023 OPPOSITION: Filed on December 29, 2023 REPLY: Filed on January 5, 2024 RELIEF REQUESTED Defendants Timothy Tierney and Simplelayers, Inc. f/k/a Cartograph, Inc. seek an order awarding the reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred on appeal and post-appeal in the amount of $109,021.00. BACKGROUND On March 18, 2015, Plaintiff Surjit P. Soni dba The Soni Law Firm (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendants Cartograph, Inc., Simplelayers, Inc., Timothy Tierney, and DOES 1-10. The Complaint asserted eight causes of action for: 1. Breach of Contract 2. Quantum Meruit 3. Money Had and Received 4. Book Account 5. Fraudulent Misrepresentation 6. Negligent Misrepresentation 7. Fraudulent Inducement to Enter into Contract 8. Breach of Guaranty On August 16, 2021, this Court entered Judgment in favor of Defendants and awarded attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $334,458.41. On October 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed an appeal as to the August 16, 2021 Judgment. The matter was finally disposed on August 2, 2023, wherein the Court of Appeal affirmed the August 16, 2021 Judgment. On September 8, 2023, Defendants Timothy Tierney and Simplelayers, Inc. f/k/a Cartograph, Inc. (Defendants) filed the instant motion for attorneys fees. On December 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On January 5, 2024, Defendants filed a reply. TENTATIVE RULING Defendants Timothy Tierney and Simplelayers, Inc. f/k/a Cartograph, Inc.s Motion for Attorneys Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $109,021.00. OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE The Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections to the declaration of Jessica Weisel. LEGAL STANDARD Neither party to the arbitration may recover costs or attorney's fees incurred in preparation for or in the course of the fee arbitration proceeding with the exception of the filing fee paid pursuant to subdivision (a) of this section. However, a court confirming, correcting, or vacating an award under this section may award to the prevailing party reasonable fees and costs incurred in obtaining confirmation, correction, or vacation of the award including, if applicable, fees and costs on appeal . (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6203(c).) DISCUSSION Defendants Timothy Tierney and Simplelayers, Inc. f/k/a Cartograph, Inc. (Defendants) seek $109,021.00 in attorneys fees consisting of $86,946 in fees for litigation or collection efforts, $13,705.00 in fees for preparing the instant motion, and $9,000.00 in additional fees for filing a reply to the opposition. Here, the parties do not dispute Defendants were the prevailing parties on appeal and are entitled to attorneys fees and costs. However, Plaintiff contends the Court of Appeal only awarded Defendants costs on appeal. This argument is irrelevant because Defendants may also recover reasonable attorneys fees and costs associated with having to obtain confirmation of the arbitration award including appellate costs and fees. Defendants done just that by opposing Plaintiffs appeal of the August 16, 2021 Judgment that confirmed the arbitration award. Next, Plaintiff contends Defendants cannot recover attorneys fees because they were represented by pro bono counsel. The California case law does not support such contention. In Aerotek, Inc. v. Johnson Group Staffing Company, Inc. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 670, the court reiterated even attorneys who perform services pro bono may obtain reasonable attorney fees under a fee-shifting statute. ( Aerotek, Inc. v. Johnson Group Staffing Company, Inc. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 670, 683.) Finally, Plaintiff asserts Defendants are seeking recovery at excessive billing rates where the motion fails to provide adequate descriptions of the work performed and contain time entries that are blocked billed. As such, Plaintiff argues a negative lodestar of at least 30 percent should be placed on the billing rates requested. However, Defendants advance the declaration of their attorney Jessica Weisel, which attests to the prevailing market rates for appellate lawyers involving complex litigation issues. (Weisel Decl., ¶¶37-46.) Additionally, Weisel attests to the number of hours expended by each attorney and paralegal in this matter in connection to the preparing the response brief to the second appeal, holding a moot court, preparing for oral argument, and even engaging in settlement talks. ( Id. at ¶¶27-35.) Thus, Defendants describe the type of work that was performed and the associated hours expended to complete these tasks including preparing the present motion. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Defendants Timothy Tierney and Simplelayers, Inc. f/k/a Cartograph, Inc.s Motion for Attorneys Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $109,021.00. Dated: July 18, 2024 ___________________________________ Joel L. Lofton Judge of the Superior Court