Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2012-00088508-CU-EN-CTL, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 10, 2023

08/11/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Enforcement Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2012-00088508-CU-EN-CTL SMITH VS. MARTINEZ+CUTRI CORPORATION ARCHITECTS [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 03/23/2023

Plaintiff Eric Smith's unopposed Motion to Amend the Judgment is GRANTED.

Plaintiff's unopposed Request for Judicial Notice is granted and notice will be taken to the extent allowed.

As background, Plaintiff obtained a judgment against Martinez+Cutri Corporation Architects, a CA Corp (MCAA). Plaintiff renewed the judgment on December 19, 2022. (ROA 7-8.) In this motion, Plaintiff seeks to add as judgment debtors: (1) Martinez & Cutri Urban Studio Corporation, a California Corporation (MCUSC); (2) Joseph Martinez, an individual; and (3) Anthony Cutri, an individual. Plaintiff duly served these individuals and entities. (ROA 16-19.) A California court may use 'all the means necessary' to carry its jurisdiction into effect. (C.C.P., § 187.) This includes amending a judgment to add additional judgment debtors. (Curci Invs., LLC v. Baldwin (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 214, 220; Wolf Metals Inc. v. Rand Pac. Sales Inc. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 698, 702.) As a general rule, a judge may amend a judgment at any time so that it properly designates the real defendants. (Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. L.M. Ross Law Group, LLP (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1188.) Whether to amend a judgment under C.C.P. section 187 is within the judge's discretion. (Wolf Metals Inc., supra, 4 Cal.App.5th at p. 702.) Judges are encouraged, however, to be liberal in allowing these amendments to ensure that justice is done. (Misik v. D'Arco (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1065, 1072-73; Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486, 508.) Amendment of a judgment to add an alter ego as a judgment debtor is an equitable procedure that, in effect, inserts the correct name of the real defendant. (Hall, Goodhue, Haisley & Barker, Inc. v. Marconi Conf. Center Bd. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1551, 1554–1555.) 'The court may exercise its authority [under section 187] to impose liability upon an alter ego who had control of the litigation, and was therefore represented in it. [Citation.] The addition of a new party as judgment debtor stems from the concept of the alter ego doctrine, which is that an identity exists between the new party and the original party, whose participation in the trial leading to the judgment represented the newly added party.' (Misik v. D'Arco (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1065, 1072.) 'In addition, even if all the formal elements necessary to establish alter ego liability are not present, an unnamed party may be included as a judgment debtor if 'the equities overwhelmingly favor' the amendment and it is necessary to prevent an injustice.' (Carolina Casualty Ins. Co. v. L.M. Ross Law Group, LLP (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1188–1189.) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2954145  53 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SMITH VS. MARTINEZ+CUTRI CORPORATION ARCHITECTS  37-2012-00088508-CU-EN-CTL Relentless Air Racing, LLC v. Airborne Turbine Ltd. Partnership (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 811 stated that to prevail on a section 187 motion to amend a judgment to add a judgment debtor, the plaintiff must show: '(1) the parties to be added as judgment debtors had control of the underlying litigation and were virtually represented in that proceeding; (2) there is such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the entity and the owners no longer exist; and (3) an inequitable result will follow if the acts are treated as those of the entity alone.' (Relentless Air, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at pp.

815–816.) Notwithstanding, with regard to a postjudgment corporate successor, it is not necessary to find control of the underlying litigation to add it as a judgment debtor. (Favila v. Pasquarella (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 934, 949.) Here, as to MCUSC, Labor Code section 200.3 provides a successor to a judgment debtor is liable for unpaid wages owed to the judgment debtor's former workforce. It is undisputed that the criteria under Labor Code section 200.3 is met. MCUSC uses substantially the same facilities and workforce and offers substantially the same services as MCCA. The business addresses are the same, there is at least one common employee and the entities are both architectural firms. MCUSC and MCCA have the same owners and managing agents in Martinez and Cutri, who are also the sole officers and directors. Thus, Labor Code section 200.3 applies and MCUSC is liable for MCCA's wages, damages and penalties owed to Plaintiff.

As to Martinez and Cutri, they are the alter egos of MCCA and MCUSC. The unchallenged facts support a unity of interest as Martinez and Cutri are the owners, officers and directors of MCCA and MCUSC, use various companies as shells, use the same offices and employees and hold themselves out to the public on their website has founding principals. There is also evidence Martinez and Cutri controlled this litigation. They both participated in the DLRE Claim and appeared for at least one meeting; and Martinez signed the settlement agreement. An inequitable result would occur if alter ego liability were not allowed.

Plaintiff was employed by an entity owned and controlled by Martinez and Cutri and they failed to pay him is owed wages. They abandoned MCCA without holding their end of the bargain on the settlement agreement and Plaintiff is entitled to be compensated. Under California's policy of liberally allowing amendments to judgments, Plaintiff established the alter ego principle applies.

For these reasons, amending the judgment to include MCUSC, Martinez and Cutri is appropriate and the motion is GRANTED.

The following individuals/entities are ordered to be added to the judgment as judgment debtors: (1) Martinez & Cutri Urban Studio Corporation, a California Corporation; (2) Joseph Martinez; and (3) Anthony Cutri.

Plaintiff is ordered to: (i) prepare and submit a proposed order consistent with this ruling; and (ii) serve notice of this ruling and the Court's final order on all parties.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2954145  53