Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV01546, Date: 2024-10-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01546, Date: 2024-10-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01546 Hearing Date: October 8, 2024 Dept: C

CHANGYA NEWMATERIAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., vs E SOLUTIONS, et al.

Case No.: 23NWCV01546

Hearing Date: October 8, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m.

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Changya Newmaterial Technology Co., LTD’s Motion to Amend Judgment is CONTINUED to December 10, 2024 at 10:30 a.m. in Department SE-C.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Background

In a Complaint filed May 18, 2023, Plaintiff Changya Newmaterial Technology Co., LTD. (“Plaintiff”) sues Defendant E Solutions for: (1) Breach of Written Contract (Invoices); (2) Account Stated (Invoices and Goods Ordered); (3) Implied Contract (Goods Ordered); and (4) Implied Contract (Packaging Materials).

Default was entered against E Solutions on July 25, 2023.

On October 17, 2023, default judgment was entered against E Solutions in the amount of $204,540.45. (See 10-17-23 Judgment.)

Plaintiff asserts that after obtaining the judgment, Plaintiff discovered that E Solutions appears to be a dba or “doing business as” for Elias B Escobar Lupercio.

Plaintiff moves to amend the judgment to add nonparty Elias B. Escobar Lupercio (“Lupercio”) as an additional defendant because Lupercio operates E. Solutions as an alternative name.

Legal Standard

C.C.P. §187 grants to every court the power to use all means necessary to carry its jurisdiction into effect, even if those processes are not set out in the code. C.C.P. §187 provides as follows: “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.”

“[U]nless the amendment merely corrects a clerical error appearing on the face of the record, amendment of a judgment requires notice to all parties whose rights would be substantially affected, a hearing, and presentation of evidence sufficient to make the necessary factual determinations. Where the judgment is amended without notice to a party whose rights are substantially affected by the amendment, the judgment may be set aside.” (Manson, Iver & York v. Black (2009) 176 Cal.App.4^th 36, 44.)

Discussion

Plaintiff contends that E Solutions is a “dba” through which Lupercio runs his business. E Solutions has a website, and the address listed on the website is the same address where the Summons and Complaint were served. (Woo Decl., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff has identified websites showing shipping registrations made in the name of Elias B Escobar Lupercio dba E Solutions, and there are other lawsuits filed against Lupercio dba E Soultions. (Id., ¶ 7; Ex. B.) Lupercio has not filed a fictitious business dame statement with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office. (Id., ¶ 8.) Had he done so, Plaintiff would be able to levy the bank accounts he uses to do business for E Solutions. (Ibid.)

Attached to the instant motion is Proof of Service via Mail dated June 27, 2024 upon E Solutions, 12222 Bell Ranch Dr. Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; and Elias Lupercio, 9931 Ahmann Ave, Whittier, CA 90605.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not effectuated proper service of process on Elias B Escobar Lupercio. Personal service must be made, or at least attempted. As a result, the Court does not have jurisdiction to amend the judgment to add Lupercio. The hearing is CONTINUED to December 10, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. and Plaintiff shall have until December 2, 2024 to file proof of personal service with the Court.