Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 21STLC08505, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC08505    Hearing Date: January 4, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, January 04, 2024

Case Name:                             LEGAL SUPPORT NETWORK, LLC, a California Limited liability company dba Express Network v. SELLAR HAZARD & LUCIA, a PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION; and DOES 1 TO 10, inclusive

Case No.:                                21STLC08505

Motion:                                   Motion to Amend Default Court Judgment

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Legal Support Network, LLC

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff Legal Support Network’s Motion to Amend the

                                                May 17, 2023 Default Judgment is GRANTED.

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to submit a proposed AMENDED Judgment for the Court’s review/approval within 10-court days.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                      OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                      OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                       OK 

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of November 07, 2023              [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of November 14, 2023              [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

            On December 01, 2021, Judgment Creditor Legal Support Network, LLC (“Judgment Creditor”) filed three causes of action against Judgment Debtor Sellar Hazard and Lucia, A Professional Law Corporation (“Judgment Debtor”) for (1) Account Stated, (2) Open Book Account; and (3) Quantum Meruit for Services Rendered and Money Expended.

            On August 31, 2022, default was entered against Judgment Debtor.

            On May 17, 2023, the Court entered default judgment in favor of the Judgment Creditor and against Judgment Debtor.

            On October 31, 2023, Judgment Creditor filed the instant Motion to Amend Default Court Judgment. No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Plainitff prays for the Court to amend the default judgment, under CCP § 187, to remove Judgment Debtor named as “Sellar Hazard and Lucia, A Professional Corporation” and properly designate the real Judgment Debtor as “Sellar Hazard and Lucia.”

OPPOSITION

            No opposition has been filed.

REPLY

            No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

I.                   Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 187 states: “[w]hen 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.”  “Section 187 contemplates amending a judgment by noticed motion.  [Citations.]  The court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion to amend a judgment but may rule on the motion based solely on declarations and other written evidence.  [Citation.]”  (Highland Springs Conference & Training Center v. City of Banning (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 267, 280.)  “In the interests of justice, the ‘greatest liberality is to be encouraged’ in the allowance of amendments brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 187.  [Citation.]”  (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Weinberg (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1, 7.) 

In addition, Code of Civil Procedure § 473(d), provides that a court may correct clerical judgments to conform to the judgment directed. 

II.        Discussion

As a preliminary matter the Court notes that the name of the Defendant/Judgment Debtor in this action is “Sellar Hazard & Lucia, A Professional Corporation,” and not “Sellar Howard & Lucia, A Professional Corporation” as mentioned in Judgment Creditor’s moving papers. Thus, the Court will continue to reference them as “Sellar Hazard & Lucia, A Professional Corporation,”

On the merits, Judgment Creditor moves to amend the judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 187. 

“Under section 187, the trial court is authorized to amend a judgment to add additional judgment debtors.... As a general rule, ‘a court may amend its judgment at any time so that the judgment will properly designate the real defendants.’.... Judgments may be amended to add additional judgment debtors on the ground that a person or entity is the alter ego of the original judgment debtor.... ‘Amendment of a judgment to add an alter ego “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... 

(Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486, 508 [citing Hall, Goodhue, Haisley & Barker, Inc. v. Marconi Conf. Center Bd. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1551, 1554-1555].) The elements necessary to impose alter ego liability are: “ (1) the part[y] to be added as judgment [debtor] had control of the underlying litigation and were virtually represented in that proceeding; (2) there is such a unity of interest and ownership that 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 Racing, LLC v. Airborne Turbine Ltd. Partnership (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 811, 815.) 

            Moreover, CCP § 128(a)(8) provides that a court has the power to, “[t]o amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice.” The Supreme Court of California has interpreted, “the power to amend and control process and orders reflected in section 128, subdivision 8, is limited to such exercise as the correction of clerical errors.” (Bloniarz v. Roloson (1969) 70 Cal.2d 143, 148.)

Here, Judgment Creditor provides the Court with the declaration of Judgment Creditor’s counsel. Judgment Creditor states that the use of “Sellar Hazard and Lucia, A Professional Corporation” was the result of an error. (Singleton Decl., ¶ 2.) Judgment Creditor argues that the real Defendant is “Sellar Hazard and Lucia” and is the same defendant listed in the complaint and subsequent default judgment. (Motion p. 5:12.) “Sellar Hazard and Lucia” entered negotiations for documentation supporting Plaintiff’s claims in this Action. (Singleton Decl., at ¶¶ 6, 7, 8.) Plaintiff declares that it communicated regularly with “Sellar Hazard and Lucia” throughout the entire process. (Id.) Plaintiff repeatedly met and conferred with “Sellar Hazard and Lucia” about responsive pleadings and the filing of Requests for Default. (Id.) “Sellar Hazard and Lucia” was served with Plaintiff’s Requests for Default and Requests for Default Judgment. (Id. at ¶¶ 7, 8, 9.) “Sellar Hazard and Lucia” knowingly and intentionally submitted to judgment in this Action. (Singleton Decl.)

The Courts finds the evidence sufficient to show that “Sellar Hazard and Lucia” is an alter ego of Judgment Debtor insofar as it was the actual Judgment Debtor rather than “Sellar Hazard and Lucia, A Professional Corporation.” Sellar Hazard and Lucia’s interests were represented in this action by their participation in the action and submission to judgment. Noting that Code of Civil Procedure § 187 empowers the Court to carry out the default judgment by, “all the means necessary,” and further that CCP § 128(a)(8) empowers the Court to amend and control its orders to correct for clerical errors as evidence in this matter, the default judgment is corrected to reflect “Sellar Hazard and Lucia” as the true judgment debtor under CCP § 187. 

Accordingly, the Court amends the Judgment to remove Judgment Debtor named “Sellar Hazard and Lucia, A Professional Corporation” and properly designate the real Judgment Debtor as “Sellar Hazard & Lucia.”

II.        Conclusion

            The Motion to Amend the May 17, 2023 Default Court Judgment is GRANTED.

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to submit a proposed AMENDED Judgment for the

Court’s review/approval within 10-court days.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice.