Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 21NWCV00495, Date: 2024-06-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21NWCV00495    Hearing Date: June 5, 2024    Dept: C

PALACIO v. RAMON’S TRUCKING, et al.

CASE NO.:  21NWCV00495

HEARING:  6/5/24 @ 10:30 A.M.

#12

TENTATIVE ORDER

Assignee of Record Creative Judgment Solutions’ motion to amend the judgment is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

This is an employment discrimination case brought by Plaintiff Modesto Palacio (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant Ramon’s Trucking, Valley Fruit & Produce, and Lorenzo Rosas.

Creative Judgment Solutions moves for an order to amend the judgment entered on July 26, 2023, against Ramon’s Trucking (an unknown entity) and Lorenzo Rosas, to reflect the name of the judgment debtor as Lorenzo Rosas individually and doing business as Ramon’s Trucking. Both Ramon’s Trucking and Lorenzo Rosas defaulted. Plaintiff has assigned the judgment to Creative Judgment Solutions.

As of June 4, 2024, no opposition has been filed. 

Code of Civil Procedure section 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.”  (Highland Springs Conference & Training Center v. City of Banning (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 267, 280.) 

There are two requirements for disregarding the corporate entity and for finding alter ego liability: “(1) that there be such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist and (2) that, if the acts are treated as those of the corporation alone, an inequitable result will follow.” (Automotriz etc. De California v. Resnick (1957) 47 Cal.2d 792, 796.)

“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.”  (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Weinberg (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1, 7.) 

Creative Judgment Solutions submits the declaration of Alex Reyes, collector, who states that he performed a skip tracing method to ascertain the assets and confirm the accuracy of the judgment debtor. He further states that he found there is no such entity as Ramon’s Trucking. (Decl. Reyes.) Creative Judgment Solutions also submits the declaration of Plaintiff, who states that Lorenzo Rosas was the only person who had management and control of Ramon’s Trucking. (Decl. Palacios.) He also states that he had only taken instructions from Lorenzo Rosas and that each paycheck he received from the Bank of America checking account was signed by Lorenzo Rosas. (Decl. Palacios.)

Given that Reyes did not find an entity such as Ramon’s Trucking, the Court grants the motion.