Do any lawyers from California want to argue that you CaNNot vacate a post judgment void on it's face order after final judgment under 473(d)?

I've got a bunch of lawyers trying to argue that you cannot vacate a void on it's face judgment after final judgment. A post judgment order at that. This is CCP 473(d) vacate void order at any time.

It's supported by Clipperjet v. Tyson which revolves around a duplicate and frivolous removal to federal court but still points out that state court jurisdiction is removed when a case is pending removal to federal court unless it's found to be frivolous and duplicate. However... what I'm talking about and asking for your opinion on here is if you think you can't vacate a Void Post Judgment Order under 473(b) after final judgment.... because I've actually got lawyers trying to make this argument - like... you can't vacate a void post judgment order because the case has concluded... that doesn't make any sense... that doesn't even mention timeliness though the grounds would arguably be timeliness... I just think it's really stupid and that people are sort of overlooking it due to weird prejudice or not thinking about it properly, but maybe I'm an idiot, feel free to tell me as long as you actually respond to the matter of:

vacating a void order at any time under 473(d) - whether you think you can or cannot vacate a void an order issued after final judgment or you have to set aside final judgment to vacate a void post judgment order

timeline -

1. final judgment is issued - default, or denial to set aside/vacate default

2. judge makes a post judgment order like for attorney fees or possession, this is after defendant is found in default

3. Party tries to vacate post judgment order as void under 473(d) and is told they can't because ... they can't file any motions while in default ...

CCP473(d) A court may correct clerical mistakes (such as typos or incorrect dates) in its judgments or orders at any time, either on its own motion or upon the motion of either party

Thorson v. Western Development Co:

Pursuant to Thorson v. Western Development Co., it is well established that an order that is void on it's face may be vacated at any time, even after final judgment and even after default. Here is the actual text from the case law:

“Some five months and twenty-nine days after the default judgment had been entered, defendant Western filed on September 2, 1964, a notice of motion to set aside and vacate the default judgment previously entered.

Clipperjet v. Tyson: As a general rule, “state court action [pending removal] is void, even if the removal is ultimately held improper.” (Phillips & Stevenson, Cal. Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2019) ¶ 2:3525; see 14C Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure (4th ed. 2018) § 3736, fn. omitted [“numerous courts have ruled that any post-removal proceedings in the state court are considered coram non judice [i.e., not before a judge] even if the removal subsequently is found to have been improper and the case is remanded back to that state court”].) “ ClipperJet Inc. v. Tyson, 38 Cal.App.5th 521, 251 Cal.Rptr.3d 34 (2019).