inadvertent clerical error in California

2002In both Pazderka and Premium Commercial Services, the Courts of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion by setting aside a section 998 settlement because the erroneous omission of a provision for attorney fees and costs was "not the type of mistake `ordinarily made by a person with no special training or skill.'" ( Pazderka, at p. 671, 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 242 ; see also Premium Commercial Services, at pp. 1496-1497, 86 Cal. Rptr.2d 65 .) By contrast, the inadvertent clerical error alleged here is such a mistake. [5] The observation in Pazderka that courts will not set aside a valid s

2002In both Pazderka and Premium Commercial Services, the Courts of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion by setting aside a section 998 settlement because the erroneous omission of a provision for attorney fees and costs was "not the type of mistake `ordinarily made by a person with no special training or skill.'" ( Pazderka, at p. 671, 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 242 ; see also Premium Commercial Services, at pp. 1496-1497, 86 Cal. Rptr.2d 65 .) By contrast, the inadvertent clerical error alleged here is such a mistake. [5] The observation in Pazderka that courts will not set aside a valid s

2002In both Pazderka and Premium Commercial Services, the Courts of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion by setting aside a section 998 settlement because the erroneous omission of a provision for attorney fees and costs was "not the type of mistake `ordinarily made by a person with no special training or skill.'" ( Pazderka, at p. 671, 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 242 ; see also Premium Commercial Services, at pp. 1496-1497, 86 Cal. Rptr.2d 65 .) By contrast, the inadvertent clerical error alleged here is such a mistake. [5] The observation in Pazderka that courts will not set aside a valid s

2002In both Pazderka and Premium Commercial Services, the Courts of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion by setting aside a section 998 settlement because the erroneous omission of a provision for attorney fees and costs was "not the type of mistake `ordinarily made by a person with no special training or skill.'" ( Pazderka, at p. 671, 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 242 ; see also Premium Commercial Services, at pp. 1496-1497, 86 Cal. Rptr.2d 65 .) By contrast, the inadvertent clerical error alleged here is such a mistake. [5] The observation in Pazderka that courts will not set aside a valid s

2002In both Pazderka and Premium Commercial Services, the Courts of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion by setting aside a section 998 settlement because the erroneous omission of a provision for attorney fees and costs was "not the type of mistake `ordinarily made by a person with no special training or skill.'" ( Pazderka, at p. 671, 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 242 ; see also Premium Commercial Services, at pp. 1496-1497, 86 Cal. Rptr.2d 65 .) By contrast, the inadvertent clerical error alleged here is such a mistake. [5] The observation in Pazderka that courts will not set aside a valid s

2002In both Pazderka and Premium Commercial Services, the Courts of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion by setting aside a section 998 settlement because the erroneous omission of a provision for attorney fees and costs was "not the type of mistake `ordinarily made by a person with no special training or skill.'" ( Pazderka, at p. 671, 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 242 ; see also Premium Commercial Services, at pp. 1496-1497, 86 Cal. Rptr.2d 65 .) By contrast, the inadvertent clerical error alleged here is such a mistake. [5] The observation in Pazderka that courts will not set aside a valid s

2024(Zamora, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 259 .) In those cases, “the Courts of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion by setting aside a section 998 settlement because the erroneous omission of a provision for attorney fees and costs was ‘not the type of mistake “ordinarily made by a person with no special training or skill.” ’ (Pazderka, at p. 671; see also Premium Commercial Services, at pp. 1496– 1497.) By contrast, the inadvertent clerical error alleged here is such a mistake.” (Zamora, at pp. 259–260.) Avila’s reliance on Roden v. Bergen Brunswig Corp. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 620 i

2024Bid peddling . . . is an attempt by a subcontractor to undercut known bids already submitted to the general contractor in order to procure the job.’ ” (Titan Electric, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 202, fn. 6 .) 23 this condition is “subject to the further provisions set forth in Section 4107.5.” (Id., subd. (a)(5).) Section 4107.5 requires that a prime contractor’s claim of inadvertent clerical error in the listing of the subcontractor be made “within two working days after the time of the prime bid opening by the awarding authority,” with timely notice to both the listed subcontractor and the

2022(See People v. Menius (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1294-1295 [sentence which is the result of an inadvertent clerical error by judge may be corrected on appeal].) We found nothing else in the record which would provide defendant with a better result. 3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed as modified to order defendant to pay $763.82 in restitution to the California Victim Compensation Board for deposit in the Restitution Fund, instead of paying that restitution to the “victims of violent crime program” as the trial court previously ordered.

2002(See Commonwealth Land Title Co. v. Kornbluth (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 518, 530-531 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 774 ] [omission of date of entry of judgment from one of five abstracts of judgment obviously an inadvertent clerical error].) Most likely an evidentiary hearing will be required to resolve this issue.

2002(See Commonwealth Land Title Co. v. Kornbluth (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 518, 530-531 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 774 ] [omission of date of entry of judgment from one of five abstracts of judgment obviously an inadvertent clerical error].) Most likely an evidentiary hearing will be required to resolve this issue.

2002In both Pazderka and Premium Commercial Services, the Courts of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion by setting aside a section 998 settlement because the erroneous omission of a provision for attorney fees and costs was "not the type of mistake `ordinarily made by a person with no special training or skill.'" ( Pazderka, at p. 671, 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 242 ; see also Premium Commercial Services, at pp. 1496-1497, 86 Cal. Rptr.2d 65 .) By contrast, the inadvertent clerical error alleged here is such a mistake. [5] The observation in Pazderka that courts will not set aside a valid s

1999(Rosse v. DeSoto Cab Co. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1050 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 680 ].) Main Issue The argument for Land is relatively simple: in the bid submitted pursuant to section 4104, Kiewit-Shea listed Land as the subcontractor for *425 glass paver panels; Kiewit-Shea had no lawful basis under the act to substitute any other subcontractor for the glass paver panel work, as there is no contention that Land was unable or unwilling to do the work, and Kiewit-Shea did not timely invoke the statutory procedure to claim that the listing of Land for the glass paver panel work was an inadvertent cle

1999(Rosse v. DeSoto Cab Co. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1050 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 680 ].) Main Issue The argument for Land is relatively simple: in the bid submitted pursuant to section 4104, Kiewit-Shea listed Land as the subcontractor for *425 glass paver panels; Kiewit-Shea had no lawful basis under the act to substitute any other subcontractor for the glass paver panel work, as there is no contention that Land was unable or unwilling to do the work, and Kiewit-Shea did not timely invoke the statutory procedure to claim that the listing of Land for the glass paver panel work was an inadvertent cle

1989(See People v. Dumas (1973) 9 Cal.3d 871, 880 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 304 , 512 P.2d 1208 ]; People v. MacAvoy, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d 746, 764 .) On these facts, we agree with the court below that Officer Hines had an objectively reasonable good faith belief that the warrant properly authorized the search he actually carried out.

1989(See People v. Dumas (1973) 9 Cal.3d 871, 880 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 304 , 512 P.2d 1208 ]; People v. MacAvoy, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d 746, 764 .) On these facts, we agree with the court below that Officer Hines had an objectively reasonable good faith belief that the warrant properly authorized the search he actually carried out.

1989Suppressing evidence because the magistrate failed to correct an inadvertent clerical error “will not serve the deterrent function that the exclusionary rule was designed to achieve.” (Massachusetts v. Sheppard, supra, 468 U.S. 981, 991 [ 82 L.Ed.2d 737, 745 ].) Further, the omission here did not result in “a general, exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings.” (Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) 403 U.S. 443, 467 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 583 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 ].) Only those items enumerated in the affidavit were seized.

1989Suppressing evidence because the magistrate failed to correct an inadvertent clerical error “will not serve the deterrent function that the exclusionary rule was designed to achieve.” (Massachusetts v. Sheppard, supra, 468 U.S. 981, 991 [ 82 L.Ed.2d 737, 745 ].) Further, the omission here did not result in “a general, exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings.” (Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) 403 U.S. 443, 467 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 583 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 ].) Only those items enumerated in the affidavit were seized.

1989Suppressing evidence because the magistrate failed to correct an inadvertent clerical error “will not serve the deterrent function that the exclusionary rule was designed to achieve.” (Massachusetts v. Sheppard, supra, 468 U.S. 981, 991 [ 82 L.Ed.2d 737, 745 ].) Further, the omission here did not result in “a general, exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings.” (Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) 403 U.S. 443, 467 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 583 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 ].) Only those items enumerated in the affidavit were seized.

1989Suppressing evidence because the magistrate failed to correct an inadvertent clerical error “will not serve the deterrent function that the exclusionary rule was designed to achieve.” (Massachusetts v. Sheppard, supra, 468 U.S. 981, 991 [ 82 L.Ed.2d 737, 745 ].) Further, the omission here did not result in “a general, exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings.” (Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) 403 U.S. 443, 467 [ 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 583 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 ].) Only those items enumerated in the affidavit were seized.

1985(LeMar v. Superior Court (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 126, 129 [ 196 P.2d 98 ]; Wilson v. Wilson (1948) 88 Cal.App.2d 382, 384 [ 198 P.2d 916 ].) Further, an appellate court may direct the trial court to make an order nunc pro tunc.

1985(LeMar v. Superior Court (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 126, 129 [ 196 P.2d 98 ]; Wilson v. Wilson (1948) 88 Cal.App.2d 382, 384 [ 198 P.2d 916 ].) Further, an appellate court may direct the trial court to make an order nunc pro tunc.

1985(LeMar v. Superior Court (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 126, 129 [ 196 P.2d 98 ]; Wilson v. Wilson (1948) 88 Cal.App.2d 382, 384 [ 198 P.2d 916 ].) Further, an appellate court may direct the trial court to make an order nunc pro tunc.

1985(LeMar v. Superior Court (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 126, 129 [ 196 P.2d 98 ]; Wilson v. Wilson (1948) 88 Cal.App.2d 382, 384 [ 198 P.2d 916 ].) Further, an appellate court may direct the trial court to make an order nunc pro tunc.