Amendment of Judgment to Include Costs Award Was Clerical Issue Not Subject to Strict Time Limits.
In an interesting procedural decision of interest to any of us anal, time-driven attorney litigators, the Sixth District provided some interesting guidance on two issues: (1) the deadline timeliness for filing a costs memorandum after a notice of judgment entry is done by a litigant; and (2) the deadline for requesting entry of an amended judgment inclusive of costs when there has been a lot of intervening procedural developments.
Fitzgerald v. El Camino Hospital, Case No. H035951 (6th Dist. June 20, 2011) (unpublished) involved a losing plaintiff’s challenge to a trial court’s decision to amend a judgment to include costs of $20,151.09 for the defense under a costs memorandum filed more than 15 days after notice of entry of judgment was filed by one of defendant’s codefendants and pursuant to an amended judgment request over 2 years later after plaintiff’s appeal was adversely decided in the defense’s favor. What happened next? You guessed it–another appeal by plaintiff.
The corrected judgment with the amended costs award was affirmed.
The costs memorandum, even though filed 15 days after notice of entry of judgment by a co-litigant, was timely, because CCP § 1013(a) did serve to extend by 5 days an act running from “the date of service” by a party. (Cal.Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a).) This was to be distinguished from use of the rule 3.1700(a) language “the date of mailing . . . by the clerk.” BLOG OBSERVATION–This distinction may suggest that the 15 days is not extended where notice of entry is given by a court clerk; one is better served to calendar a conservative 15 days for a clerk mailing!
The trial court did not lose jurisdiction to amend the judgment. Even though the clerk is to ministerially enter the costs on the judgment “immediately” after a a ruling on a motion to tax costs, a failure to perform such a duty simply meant the trial court retained the power to correct clerical errors in a judgment at any time. (People v. Turrin, 176 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1205 (2009).) So, this expansive time frame to correct clerical errors made the amendment over 2 years later “timely” in nature.