DISCUSSION

“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 . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d).) However, the court may not “ ‘change an order which has become final even though made in error, if in fact the order made was that intended to be made.’ ” (Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1144 (Bell).) “ ‘The test which distinguishes clerical error from possible judicial error is simply whether the challenged portion of the judgment was entered inadvertently (which is clerical error) versus advertently (which might be judicial error, but is not clerical error). [Citation.] Unless the challenged portion of the judgment was entered inadvertently, it cannot be changed post judgment under the guise of correction of clerical error.’ ” (Ibid.) We review the trial court’s ruling on a motion to amend to correct a judgment based on a clerical error for abuse of discretion. (Estate of Douglas (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 690, 694.)3

3 4K2D argues that the appropriate standard of review is de novo because its appeal requires this court to decide whether prevailing party costs should have been awarded based on undisputed facts. (City of Long Beach v. Stevedoring Services of America (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 672, 678.) This may have been the appropriate standard if 4K2D had appealed from the order denying its request for costs. But 4K2D appeals only from the

4 4K2D argues that the judgment’s omission of a cost award in its favor was a clerical error that the trial court was obligated to correct. We disagree. The judgment did not award costs to either party. It expressly stated that any cost award would be resolved “TBD at a hearing.” 4K2D has not identified any evidence that this aspect of the judgment was a clerical error. For example, the judgment specified that neither party requested a statement of decision. And 4K2D did not provide a reporter’s transcript of the bench trial that resulted in the judgment. There is no evidence that the absence of a cost order in the judgment was inadvertent such that it could be considered a clerical error. We cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying 4K2D’s motion to amend the judgment to correct a clerical error, since 4K2D has not identified any evidence that a clerical error occurred. 4K2D’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. It contends that the clerk of court was required to enter costs on the judgment based on 4K2D’s unopposed memorandum of costs. Specifically, under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1), “[a] prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment.” A motion to strike such costs must be filed within 15 days, and when that time expires, “the clerk must immediately enter the costs on the judgment.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(4).) 4K2D filed a memorandum of costs, and Jackson never moved to strike. But this rule applies only when a “prevailing party” seeks costs. 4K2D has identified

subsequent order denying its motion to amend the judgment based on a supposed clerical error. The appropriate standard of review in this case is for abuse of discretion.

5 no evidence that it was a prevailing party at the time of judgment. Indeed, the court later determined that neither party prevailed. The relevant order does not state that this ruling amended or replaced any earlier decision, which strongly suggests—if not conclusively establishes—that 4K2D was not a prevailing party when the judgment was entered. 4K2D also contends that it was entitled to costs as a matter of law under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, and that the court or court clerk was therefore required to award costs to 4K2D at the time of judgment. But even assuming that 4K2D is correct, that is a judicial error, not a clerical error, and it may not be challenged through a motion to amend. (Aspen Internat. Capital Corp. v. Marsch (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1199, 1204; Bell, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 1144 [deliberate judicial ruling “ ‘cannot be changed post judgment under the guise of correction of clerical error’ ”].) Finally, 4K2D appears to challenge the August 2024 court order denying the parties’ requests for attorney fees and costs. For example, 4K2D asserts that the August 2024 order focused on section 1717 and did not consider or determine whether any party was entitled to fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032. But 4K2D did not appeal from the August 2024 order, and did not move to vacate or amend it. We have no jurisdiction over the order and decline to entertain any challenge to it.

6

DISPOSITION

The order denying 4K2D’s motion to amend the judgment is affirmed. Jackson is awarded his costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

HANASONO, J.

We concur:

EDMON, P. J.

EGERTON, J.

7