Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date: March 1, 2024

Case Name: Fernandez & Karney, APLC v. Brooks

Case No.: 19STCV46673

Matter: Motion to Amend Judgment

Moving Party: Plaintiff Fernandez & Karney, APLC

Responding Party: None

Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Amend the Judgment is granted.

This action arises from unpaid legal fees. On December 27, 2019, Plaintiff Fernandez & Karney, APLC filed a Complaint against Defendant Arnita Brooks. On January 23, 2020, Defendant Arnita Brooks filed an Answer. On September 28, 2020, the Court struck this Answer and default was entered.

On November 30, 2020, the Court entered default judgment against Defendant Arnita Brooks in the amount of $41,135.74.

Plaintiff now moves to amend the judgment to enter judgment against Defendant Arnita Charlot pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 187. No opposition was filed.

The motion is granted.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to amend the judgment identifying Judgment Debtor from “Arnita Brooks” to “Arnita Charlot.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 187 provides that once a court has jurisdiction over a party, it may employ “all the means necessary to carry [its jurisdiction] into effect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 187.) “This includes the authority to amend a judgment to add an alter ego of an original judgment debtor, and thereby make the additional judgment debtor liable on the judgment. [Citation.] Amending a judgment to add an alter ego of an original judgment debtor ‘ “is an equitable procedure based on the theory that the court is not amending the judgment to add a new defendant but is merely inserting the correct name of the real defendant.” ’ ” (Highland Springs Conference & Training Center v. City of Banning (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 267, 280; NEC Electronics Inc. v. Hurt (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 772, 778-779.)

To prevail on a motion to amend a judgment to change a judgment debtor's name, the moving party must show that the party to be added was in fact an original defendant in the action. (Burlingame v. Justice's Court (1934) 1 Cal.2d 71, 72–73.) In addition, the moving party must have acted with due diligence in seeking to amend the judgment. (Alexander v. Abbey of the Chimes (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 39, 48.) The moving party has the burden of proving the facts essential to the granting of the motion by a preponderance of the evidence. (Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1017.) But the “decision to grant an amendment lies in the sound discretion of the trial court. [Citation.]” (Relentless Air Racing, LLC v. Airborne Turbine Ltd. Partnership (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 811, 815.)

Here, Plaintiff’s evidence shows that, on November 16, 2017, Judgment Debtor changed her legal name from “Arnita Brooks” to “Arnita Charlot.” (Fernandez Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. D.) Despite this name change and the ongoing litigation in this case, Defendant Arnita Brooks did not inform the Court or Plaintiff that she had changed her name. (Fernandez Decl., ¶¶9-12, Exs. F, G.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has met its burden on this motion.

Conclusion

The motion to amend the judgment is granted.