Judge: Layne H. Melzer, Case: 2017-00906608, Date: 2022-11-17 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Clifford Oliver

Motion - Other (Motion to Add Imperium Management LLC and XSOC Corp. As Judgment Debtors)

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Clifford Oliver’s motion to amend the 12/11/20 Judgment to add third party, alter egos Imperium Management, LLC and XSOC Corp., as judgment debtors is denied without prejudice.

The Court has no jurisdiction over the proposed alter ego judgment debtors.  There is no indication in the Record that Imperium Management, LLC and XSOC Corp. have been subject to service of process.  (See Milrot v. Stamper Medical Corp. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 182 (holding that in order for a judgment against a party to be valid, the court must have jurisdiction over that party, which is usually acquired by service); Hennessey's Tavern, Inc. v. American Air Filter Co. (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1351, 1359–1360 (holding alter ego added in later complaint must be separately served with summons).) 

As the court reads them, Milrot and Hennessey's Tavern stand for the proposition that, absent an appearance or a waiver of service of process, a court may exercise jurisdiction over an alter ego defendant only if he or she has been served with process in accordance with the statutory scheme governing service of process. (See also Ahart, Cal. Practice Guide: Enforcing Judgments & Debts (The Rutter Group 2021) ¶ 6:1575.1 [“The court must have jurisdiction over the judgment debtor's alter ego in order to enter a valid judgment against the alter ego. This is normally accomplished by service of process.”].) It is the only rule that is consistent with due process principles requiring an assertion of jurisdiction over a person prior to an adjudication of his or her rights.

But section 187 is simply a “procedural mechanism.” (McClellan v. Northridge Park Townhome Owners Ass'n, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 746, 754.) It does not supplant the basic due process principle that a court must obtain jurisdiction over a person before it may render a binding judgment against that person. (See Gorham, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 1226 [“ ‘[a] judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction of the person where there is no proper service of process on or appearance by a party to the proceedings’ ”]; Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1385 [“A judgment of a court lacking personal jurisdiction is a violation of due process, and it is null and void everywhere”].)

Accordingly, Judgment Creditor’s motion is denied without prejudice for failure properly to serve Imperium Management, LLC and XSOC Corp.