Alcaraz

Defendant Hugo Alcaraz (Alcaraz) appeals from the trial court’s entry of a default judgment against him, claiming that the default should be set aside because it was obtained through the mistake, fraud and *498 collusion of his former attorneys. (Code Civ. Proc., 1 § 473, subd. (b).) Plaintiff Dakota Payphone, LLC (Dakota), appeals from the trial court’s order purporting to grant, in part, Alcaraz’s motion for a new trial, asserting that the trial court had lost jurisdiction to make such a ruling. Dakota also asserts that Alcaraz’s appeal is untimely and should be dismissed. We agree with Dakota’s assertion and dismiss Alcaraz’s appeal as untimely. 2 Further, although we also agree with Dakota that the trial court had lost jurisdiction to rule upon a motion for a new trial, we hold that it retained the authority to correct the void portion of its judgment. We therefore construe the trial court’s December 29, 2008, order as an order modifying a partially void judgment and affirm it as such.

Facts and Procedural History

Dakota’s verified third amended complaint alleged that Dakota entered into 330 purchase agreements with Alcaraz and other defendants not party to this…