Judge Gary I. Micon, Case Number: 23CHCV02873, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV02873, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV02873 Hearing Date: November 12, 2024 Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 11-12-24

Case #23CHCV02873 , Protective Insurance Company vs. Angel On My Shoulder, Inc.

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND DEFENDANT’S NAME IN JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Protective Insurance Company

RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff requests leave to amend the judgment to add another name for Defendant.

RULING: The Court requires clarification on Exhibits A and B of the supplemental declaration.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Judgment was entered against Defendant Angel On My Shoulder, Inc. (Defendant) on December 5, 2023. Plaintiff Protective Insurance Company (Plaintiff) filed this motion to amend Defendant’s name in the judgment after Plaintiff’s counsel discovered, through a search of Defendant’s business records, that Defendant also goes by Angeles On My Shoulder, Inc. The evidence that Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted in support of this motion is his own declaration that he discovered this information and that he is informed that Defendant uses both names interchangeably. (Booska Decl., ¶ 2.)

Plaintiff seeks to amend Defendant’s name on the judgment so that it reads “ANGEL ON MY SHOULDER, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION aka ANGELES ON MY SHOULDER, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION.”

The Court previously continued the hearing on this motion to allow Plaintiff to file evidence that the two entities are the same. Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration on May 28, 2024, with exhibits that purport to show that the two entities are the same.

No opposition has been filed.

ANALYSIS

Courts have held that CCP § 187 gives trial courts jurisdiction to add additional judgment debtors. (See McClellan v. Northridge Park Townhome Owners Ass’n, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 746, 752.) Judgments can be “‘amended to add additional judgment debtors on the grounds that a person or entity is the alter ego of the original judgment debtor. [Citations.] 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. [Citations.] “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.”’” (Id.) Successor corporations may also be added to a judgment in a similar manner. (Id. at 753.)

Plaintiff contends in its motion that what it is not attempting to go so far as to add an additional judgment debtor or an alter ego entity or a successor corporation. Instead, Plaintiff is simply trying to add an additional name for the judgment debtor.

The Court was concerned that Plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence that Angeles On My Shoulder is simply an “aka” of Angel On My Shoulder. The declaration of Plaintiff’s attorney filed with Plaintiff’s original motion states that he discovered this through Defendant’s business records, but he did not specify which business records or whether he found the information on the Secretary of State’s website or someplace else. At the hearing on the original motion, the Court requested more information on how Plaintiff’s attorney came by this information and continued the hearing on the motion to the present date.

The supplemental declaration filed by Plaintiff’s attorney after the original hearing includes five exhibits. The first two, Exhibits A and B, are screen captures of business searches from the California Secretary of State’s website. It is unclear from the screen captures themselves what entities they are for, though the attorney’s declaration states that Exhibit A shows that Angel On My Shoulder is located in Dana Point, and Exhibit B shows that Angeles On My Shoulder is located in Northridge. (Booska Decl., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff did business with an entity at the Northridge address from Exhibit B, as demonstrated by the address on the information page that is attached as Exhibit C to the declaration. (Booska Decl., ¶ 2.)

Exhibit D to the declaration shows that the Northridge entity was served with the complaint in this matter, though the declaration also claims the proof of service for the entry of default and other filings were also attached, but only the proof of service for the complaint is attached. (Booska Decl., ¶ 2.) Exhibit E is a UCC Search from the California Secretary of State’s website that shows that Angel On My Shoulder is listed as the debtor name with the Northridge address from Exhibits B and C. (Booska Decl., ¶ 2.)

The problem with the evidence submitted by Plaintiff’s attorney is that it is impossible to tell which entity Exhibit A applies to and which entity Exhibit B applies to. All of the other evidence submitted by Plaintiff indicates that Angel On My Shoulder is located in Northridge and fits the entity in Exhibit B, but Plaintiff’s attorney has claimed that Exhibit A shows that Angel On My Shoulder is located in Dana Point and that Exhibit B shows that Angeles On My Shoulder is located at the Northridge address.

The Court will request clarification regarding Exhibits A and B at the hearing on this motion, as well as whether plaintiff has served defendant with the various motions filed in connection with this issue.

Moving party to give notice.