TENTATIVE RULING

Nonparty PNPLXPRESS, Inc.’s Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment and Writ of Execution Based on Extrinsic Fraud and Lack of Service is DENIED.

Nonparty PNPLXPRESS, Inc. to give notice. 

REASONING

Nonparty PNPLXPRESS, Inc. (“PNPLXPRESS”) moves the Court for an order setting aside the February 27, 2020 judgment, as it was modified to include PNPLXPRESS, and the writ of execution obtained by Plaintiff Sharper Inc. (“Plaintiff”), which was executed on December 19, 2023, on the grounds that PNPLXPRESS was not a party to the underlying action, PNPLXPRESS did not exist at the time the underlying dispute arose between the original parties to this action, PNPLXPRESS was not served with any process or notice in this action, PNPLXPRESS is not owned by any of the entities subject to the judgment in this action, and Plaintiff obtained a writ of execution on dubious grounds.

It is undisputed that Plaintiff obtained a judgment in this action against Pineapple Express, Inc., and Pineapple Express Consulting. On June 2, 2023, the Court approved Plaintiff’s Supplemental Affidavit of Identity, and on July 3, 2023, the Court issued an order that PNPLXPRESS, Inc. was an alter ego of the existing judgment creditors, such that PNPLXPRESS should be added as an additional judgment creditor, and the clerk was ordered to issue a writ of execution as to the existing judgment creditors and PNPLXPRESS. PNPLXPRESS argues that it was not served with any documents, and PNPLXPRESS is not an alias, alter ego, or additional name for judgment debtor Pineapple Express, Inc.

Notably, Code of Civil Procedure section 680.135, which describes an Affidavit of Identity, includes no requirement that an entity subject to an Affidavit of Identity be given notice of the same. Similarly, Code of Civil Procedure section 699.510, subdivision (c)(2), specifically allows the Court to authorize the issuance of a writ of execution without a hearing or notice if the Court determines that the affidavit of identity states sufficient facts upon which the judgment creditor has identified the additional names of the judgment debtor. Here, the Court determined that Plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to support a finding that the affidavit of identity had identified additional names of the judgment debtor. Here, PNPLXPRESS provides the declaration of the 49% owner of PNPLXPRESS, who states only that there is no common ownership between PNPLXPRESS and judgment debtor Pineapple Express, Inc., and “there is absolutely no way that the judgment debtor can be the owner of PNPLXPRESS, Inc., even

if it wanted an ownership interest in the entity.” (Mot., Ortega Decl. ¶¶ 6, 8.) This does not establish that PNPLXPRESS is not the alter ego of judgment debtor Pineapple Express, Inc., and the Court previously concluded that it was based on the evidence provided by Plaintiff. Thus, PNPLXPRESS has failed to provide a basis for setting aside the writ of execution. Nonparty PNPLXPRESS, Inc.’s Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment and Writ of Execution Based on Extrinsic Fraud and Lack of Service is, therefore, DENIED.