Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 19SMCV00818, Date: 2024-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 19SMCV00818, Date: 2024-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV00818 Hearing Date: August 12, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Magdi Mekari, et al. v. Arman Agajanyan, et al., Case No. 19SMCV00818

Hearing date: August 12, 2024

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Judgment (UNOPPOSED)

Plaintiffs leased commercial property to defendants on September 15, 2016, with the lease set to terminate September 30, 2021. Defendants failed to pay rent from February 2018. On July 26, 2021 this court issued a ruling after bench trial awarding plaintiffs $165,479 in back rent and $57,600 in damages. Plaintiffs now move for an order determining that LA Mattress Store Inc. is the alter ego of defendant Los Angeles Mattress Plus, Inc. under CCP § 187. No opposition has been filed.

Mekari’s request for the court to take judicial notice of the August 11, 2021 judgment (Exh. 1) is granted under Evid. Code § 452(d) because it is a court document. Mekari’s requests for the court to take judicial notice of 1) the business search report of LA Mattress Store Inc.; 2) the business search report for Los Angeles Mattress Plus, Inc.; 3) LA Mattress Store’s May 12, 2022 Statement of Information; and 4) Los Angeles Mattress Plus, Inc.’s November 30, 2022, Statement of Information (Exh. 2-5) are granted under Evid. Code § 452(c) because they are documents of the Secretary of State. Mekari’s request for the court to take judicial notice of LA Mattress Store Inc.’s webpage is granted under Evid. Code § 452 (h) because it is a fact not reasonably subject to dispute.

Pursuant to CCP section 187, a trial court has jurisdiction to modify a judgment to add additional judgment debtors. Section 187 grants every court the power to use all means to carry its jurisdiction into effect, even if those processes are not set out in the code. Section 187 states: “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.” Code. Civ. Proc., § 187.

Utilizing section 187, judgments are typically “amended to add additional judgment debtors on the grounds that a person or entity is the alter ego of the original judgment debtor. This 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. ‘Such a procedure is an appropriate and complete method by which to bind new individual defendants where it can be demonstrated that in their capacity as alter ego of the corporation they in fact had control of the previous litigation, and thus were virtually represented in the lawsuit.’” See NEC Electronics Inc. v. Hurt (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 772, 778; see also Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486, 508.

Plaintiffs argue LA Mattress Store Inc. is the alter ego of Los Angeles Mattress Plus, Inc. because the principals, store locations and operations of each entity are the same. Both the business search records and statements of information show the entities share Arman Agayanyan as the chief executive officer. Mekari’s declaration states he is certain two of the store locations for LA Mattress were also stores for Los Angeles Mattress Plus, and both entities shared the same number. Mekari Decl. ¶4.

This does not conclusively prove the entities are the same, or alter egos of one another, because it does not establish one company dominated the finances, policies, and practices of the affiliated companies, which were conduits of the production company and had no "mind, will, or existence" of their own. Toho-Towa Co., Ltd. v. Morgan Creek Productions, Inc. (2013) 217 CA4th 1096, 1109. Plaintiffs have not established a unity of interest between the entities or that an inequitable result would follow if the nonparty alter ego were not added.

The court will continue the matter for additional evidence, should plaintiff request.