Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: KC055572, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: KC055572    Hearing Date: March 13, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO INCLUDE “HRAIR GEORGE TUFENKDJIAN” AS ADDITIONAL AKA OF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR is GRANTED.

Background[1]

On April 24, 2009, Plaintiff ARCHIMEDE PIZZO FAMILY PARTNERS, LP (Judgment Creditor) filed suit against Defendant TONY TUFENKDJIAN, AKA HARAYER G. NARSIS (Judgment Debtor).

On September 11, 2009, judgment was entered.

On October 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Renewal of Judgment.

On January 24, 2024, an Abstract of Judgment was filed. That same day, the instant motion was filed.

Legal Standard

Plaintiff brings forth the motion pursuant to CCP section 187. (Motion p. 4.)

When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks to amend the judgment because it did not commence suit using debtor’s legal name. Specifically, during the lease application process (1/4/2004), debtor identified himself as “Harayer G. Narsis” (and the aka of “Tony Tufenkjian” was added based on information ascertained by the creditor). Thus, when creditor commenced suit, both names as aka’s of the debtor were used. However, further investigation (title search) revealed that debtor’s true name is actually Hrair George Tufenkdjian.

Plaintiff cites to Farenbaugh & Son v. Belmont Construction, Inc., 194 Cal.App.3d (1987) 1023, 1027 (quoting) Schoenberg v. Benner (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d, 154, 165 for the proposition that amendment is permissible. Those two cases establish that “the authority of the court will be exercised to impose liability under a judgment upon the alter ego who has had control of the litigation.” (Id. at p. 168, emphasis added.) In reading other cases Schoenberg cites to, Thomson v. L. C. Roney & Co., 112 Cal.App.2d 420; Mirabito v. San Francisco Dairy Co., 8 Cal.App.2d 54; and Minton v. Cavaney, 56 Cal.2d 576, 581, the established rule appears it is not merely limited to naming alter egos, but simply an amendment whose purpose is to designate the real name of the judgment debtor. “[T]he amendment did not add a new defendant to the judgment, but merely set forth the correct name of the real defendant. That a court may at any time amend its judgment so that the latter will properly designate the real defendant is not open to question.” (Thompson, supra, 112 Cal.App.2d at p. 426, qoutoing Mirabito, supra, 8 Cal.App.2d at p. 57, emphasis added.)

Therefore, the court finds the amendment within the purview of CCP section 187.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS the motion to amend the to include the name of “Hrair George Tufenkdjian ” as an additional aka of judgment debtor on the judgment originally entered on September 9, 2009, and pursuant to an amended Application, renewed on October 16, 2019.