Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-canb-4_14-ap-04180/USCOURTS-canb-4_14-ap-04180-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martha G. Bronitsky
Plaintiff
The Hassan and Fay Eshan Trust
Defendant
Hassan Eshan, Trustee of the Hassan and Fay Eshan Trust
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

|

In re |

| No. 11-48077

Evan Charles Eldridge, |

| Chapter 13

|

Debtor. |

______________________________|

|

Martha G. Bronitsky, |

Chapter 13 Standing Trustee, |

|

Plaintiff, | Adv. Pro. No. 14-04180

|

v. |

|

The Hassan and Fay Eshan |

Trust, and |

|

Hassan Ehsan, Trustee of the |

Hassan and Fay Eshan Trust, |

|

Defendants. |

______________________________|

MEMORANDUM REGARDING APPLICATION TO CORRECT JUDGMENT

This adversary proceeding was filed by the Chapter 13 

Standing Trustee (“Plaintiff”) under section 542 of the 

1

The following constitutes the order of the court.

Signed April 15, 2015

________________________________________

William J. Lafferty, III

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

April 15, 2015

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 14-04180 Doc# 28 Filed: 04/15/15 Entered: 04/15/15 14:11:53 Page 1 of 9 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Bankruptcy Code to recover $22,387.98 from The Hassan and Fay 

Eshan [sic] Trust, and Hassan Ehsan, Trustee of the Hassan and 

Fay Eshan [sic] Trust (“Defendants”) that was distributed to

the Defendants in error during the related chapter 13 case. 

The Defendants did not answer the Plaintiff’s complaint, and a

Default Judgment was entered on March 10, 2015. The Default 

Judgment was entered against “The Hassan and Fay Eshan Trust, 

and Hassan Eshan, Trustee of the Hassan and Fay Eshan Trust.” 

The adversary proceeding was closed on March 25. On March 27, 

Plaintiff filed an Application to Correct Judgment Pursuant to 

FRCP 60(a) as Incorporated under Bankruptcy Rule 9024. The 

Application requests the Default Judgment be corrected to list 

the Defendants as “The Hassan and Fay Ehsan Trust,” and “Hassan 

Ehsan, Trustee of the Hassan and Fay Ehsan Trust,” the correct 

names. This memorandum first discusses the relevant procedural 

history, and then evaluates whether the spelling error can be 

corrected under Rule 60(a).

Discussion

I. Relevant Procedural History

Although the Trust and Trustee did not respond to the 

complaint in this adversary proceeding, the Trust and Trustee 

participated in the related bankruptcy case. The Trustee filed 

a proof of claim on behalf of the Trust on August 26, 2011, 

2

Case: 14-04180 Doc# 28 Filed: 04/15/15 Entered: 04/15/15 14:11:53 Page 2 of 9 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

listing the creditor as “The Hassan and Fay Eshan Trust.” 

Shortly thereafter, on August 30, 2011, the Trust obtained 

counsel, Clayton & McEvoy, P.C., and counsel filed an amended 

proof of claim which listed the creditor as “The Hassan and Fay 

Ehsan Trust.” Counsel for the Trust also filed a request for 

notice, an objection to a motion to avoid the Trust’s lien, and 

an objection to the Debtor’s plan. At a plan confirmation 

hearing on November 10, 2011, Laurence McEvoy appeared on 

behalf of the Trust and withdrew the two objections. The plan 

was confirmed.

On September 22, 2014, the Chapter 13 Standing Trustee 

filed an adversary proceeding against “The Hassan and Fay Eshan 

Trust” (hereinafter “First Adversary Proceeding”). See Martha 

G. Bronitsky, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee v. The Hassan and Fay 

Eshan Trust, AP No. 14-04130 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2014). 

The court scheduled a status conference in the First Adversary 

Proceeding sua sponte, which was held on December 3, 2014. 

Plaintiff’s counsel was the only party to appear at the status 

conference, and the court discussed with Plaintiff’s counsel 

whether the Trustee of The Hassan and Fay Eshan Trust should be 

added as a defendant to the adversary proceeding. On December 

8, the Moran Law Group filed a notice of appearance on behalf 

of the Hassan and Fay Ehsan Trust in the First Adversary 

3

Case: 14-04180 Doc# 28 Filed: 04/15/15 Entered: 04/15/15 14:11:53 Page 3 of 9 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Proceeding. On December 10, the Chapter 13 Standing Trustee 

voluntarily dismissed the First Adversary Proceeding, and filed 

this adversary proceeding which includes both the Trust and 

Trustee as defendants. 

In this adversary proceeding, a copy of the complaint was 

served by certified mail to Clayton & McEvory, P.C., The Hassan 

and Fay Eshan Trust, and Hassan Eshan. The Moran Law Group was 

not served with a copy of the complaint and summons. Clayton & 

McEvoy, P.C. filed a letter in the adversary proceeding after 

receiving the complaint, and notified the court that the firm 

withdrew its representation of Hassan Ehsan individually and as 

trustee of the Hassan and Fay Ehsan Trust in February 2012. 

There were no other responses filed, and a default judgment was 

entered on March 10, 2015. 

II. Rule 60(a) and Rule 59(e)

Plaintiff cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 

60(a), as incorporated by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 

(“FRBP”) 9024, as grounds to correct the judgment to reflect 

accurately the names of the Defendants. FRCP 60(a) allows the 

court to “correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from 

oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). The correction can be made after 

4

Case: 14-04180 Doc# 28 Filed: 04/15/15 Entered: 04/15/15 14:11:53 Page 4 of 9 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

motion, or by the court sua sponte, and can be made with or 

without notice. Id. 

FRCP 59(e), as incorporated by FRBP 9023, allows the court 

to alter or amend a judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Under 

FRCP 59(e), a motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed 

within 28 days after the entry of the judgment, and FRBP 9023 

reduces the 28 day deadline to 14 days. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 

9023. In a recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, 

Tattersalls, Ltd. v. DeHaven, 745 F.3d 1294 (9th Cir. 2014), 

the Ninth Circuit explained that a judgment can be corrected 

under Rule 60(a) for clerical errors, oversights, and 

omissions, but if a court makes a substantive change in its 

decision, the judgment must be amended under Rule 59(e).1

 

The Ninth Circuit has also considered whether a misspelled 

party’s name on a judgment can be corrected using Rule 60(a). 

In a 2009 Ninth Circuit decision, Catz v. Chalker, 566 F.3d 839 

1 Id. at 1298. See also Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (distinguishing FRCP 59(e) from FRCP 60(a)). In 

Tattersalls, Ltd. v. DeHaven, the District Court held for the plaintiff 

but did not initially award damages. The District Court instructed the 

plaintiff to amend the judgment under FRCP 59(e) once damages became 

certain, and in doing so, overlooked the 28 day deadline to file a 

motion under FRCP 59(e). After becoming aware that the deadline had 

expired, the court allowed the judgment to be amended under FRCP 60(a). 

The Ninth Circuit affirmed because the District Court was not making a 

substantive change to its decision, and always intended to award 

damages. Id. at 1299. According to the Ninth Circuit, "[t]he basic 

distinction between clerical mistakes and mistakes that cannot be 

corrected pursuant to Rule 60(a) is that the former consist of blunders 

in execution whereas the latter consist of instances where the court 

changes its mind." Id. at 1297 (quoting Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 

1574, 1577 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation marks omitted).

5

 

Case: 14-04180 Doc# 28 Filed: 04/15/15 Entered: 04/15/15 14:11:53 Page 5 of 9 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(9th Cir. 2009), the Ninth Circuit indicated Rule 60(a) can be 

applied to correct a misspelled party’s name on a judgment. In 

Catz v. Chalker, the District Court awarded attorney fees to 

the defendant, but the plaintiff's name was incorrectly spelled 

in the caption of the judgment. Id. at 840. The plaintiff 

filed a motion to amend the judgment and correct the spelling,

and cited FRCP 59(a). The defendant did not oppose the motion, 

and the court amended the judgment. The plaintiff then appealed 

entry of the judgment. The primary issue before the Ninth 

Circuit was whether the plaintiff's filing of the motion tolled 

the time to appeal the judgment. The Ninth Circuit determined

that the plaintiff should have brought the motion under Rule 

60(a), instead of Rule 59(a), because correcting the 

plaintiff's name in the judgment was a clerical mistake. See

id. at 841. The court concluded that the time to appeal was 

tolled. Id. at 842.

III. Application

In this adversary proceeding, the name "Eshan”/”Ehsan" 

appears three times. The Plaintiff erred by misspelling 

"Ehsan" as "Eshan" twice in the complaint’s caption. "Ehsan" 

was correctly spelled once in the complaint's caption, but was 

transcribed incorrectly by the Clerk of Court and is misspelled 

6

Case: 14-04180 Doc# 28 Filed: 04/15/15 Entered: 04/15/15 14:11:53 Page 6 of 9 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

"Eshan" on the docket. The Default Judgment misspells “Ehsan” 

as “Eshan” three times.

The misspelling which resulted from a transcription error 

made by the Court clearly falls within the framework of FRBP 

9024, and can be corrected by the Court without notice. At 

issue is whether the two additional errors which originated in 

the Complaint’s caption can be corrected under FRBP 9023 or 

9024. 

Applying the principals provided under recent Ninth 

Circuit case law, this is a matter of correcting a clerical 

error and these two additional errors can be corrected under 

FRBP 9024. The Defendants were actively engaged and 

represented in the bankruptcy case, and in the adversary 

proceedings there was never any confusion or doubt regarding 

their identity. Although the complaint and Default Judgment

include a minor misspelling of the Defendants’ names, the 

adversary proceeding was brought against the Trust and Trustee 

to recover payments made to those parties during the bankruptcy 

case. The Default Judgment was entered by the Court to recover 

those payments.2 

2 The court will not determine if the error could also be corrected 

under FRBP 9023 because the judgment was entered on March 10, 2015, and 

the 14 day deadline to file a motion to amend the judgment under FRCP 

59(e) has expired.

7

 

Case: 14-04180 Doc# 28 Filed: 04/15/15 Entered: 04/15/15 14:11:53 Page 7 of 9 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above, it is possible to apply 

FRBP 9024 to correct the three spelling errors. However, the 

court believes the relief requested in the Application to 

Correct Judgment Pursuant to FRCP 60(a) as Incorporated under 

Bankruptcy Rule 9024 should not be granted on an ex parte

basis. While reviewing the Application, the Court became aware 

that the Moran Law Group filed a timely appearance in the First 

Adversary Proceeding. The Moran Law Group was not served with 

a copy of the complaint or summons in this adversary 

proceeding, and the Court believes a hearing on the Application

should be held to provide an opportunity for discussion before

any correction to the Default Judgment is made. The court will 

enter an order scheduling the Application for hearing, and 

provide the Moran Law Group with notice.

*END OF MEMORANDUM*

8

Case: 14-04180 Doc# 28 Filed: 04/15/15 Entered: 04/15/15 14:11:53 Page 8 of 9 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COURT SERVICE LIST

Martha G. Bronitsky, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee

c/o Leonidas G. Spanos

6140 Stoneridge Mall Rd # 250

Pleasanton, CA 94588

EVAN CHARLES ELDRIDGE

4301 KANSAS STREET

OAKLAND, CA 94619

DARYA SARA DRUCH, ATTY

1 KAISER PLAZA #480

OAKLAND, CA 94612

THE HASSAN AND FAY EHSAN TRUST

7166 ECHO RIDGE DRIVE

SAN JOSE, CA 95120

HASSAN EHSAN,

TRUSTEE OF THE HASSAN AND FAY EHSAN TRUST

7166 ECHO RIDGE DRIVE

SAN JOSE, CA 95120

Cathleen Cooper Moran

Moran Law Group, Inc.

1674 N Shoreline Blvd. #140

Mountain View, CA 94043-1375

9

Case: 14-04180 Doc# 28 Filed: 04/15/15 Entered: 04/15/15 14:11:53 Page 9 of 9