Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 19STCP01172, Date: 2024-10-24 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

Judgment Creditor Marius Denisiu’s Motion to Amend Judgment is GRANTED. JUDGMENT CREDITOR IS TO FILE A PROPOSED AMENDED JUDGMENT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

On April 10, 2019, the Court entered judgment in favor of Marius Denisiu (“Judgment Creditor”) and against Executive Network Enterprises, Inc. dba Executive Limousine (“Judgment Debtor”) pursuant to an Order, Decision or Award of the Labor Commissioner.

On September 4, 2024, Judgment Creditor filed the instant Motion to Amend Judgment. Judgement Debtor filed an opposition on October 14, 2024 and Judgment Creditor replied on October 18, 2024.

Judgment Creditor moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 187 to add Patricia Stephenson and Stori Bolton as additional judgment debtors.

“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].) Alter ego liability exists when there is such “unity of interest” and ownership that the individuality or separateness of the corporation has ceased to exist (or never existed in the first place). (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 300.) Also, “the facts of the case must be such that adherence to the “fiction” of the corporation's “separate existence” would sanction a fraud or promote injustice.” (Ibid.)

In support of its alter ego analysis, the Motion cites Labor Code section 558.1, which states in relevant part: “Any employer or other person acting on behalf of an employer, who violates, or causes to be violated, any provision regulating minimum wages or hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, or violates, or causes to be violated, Sections 203, 226, 226.7, 1193.6, 1194, or 2802, may be held liable as the employer for such violation.” (Lab. Code, § 558.1, subd. (a).) “[T]he term “other person acting on behalf of an employer” is limited to a natural person who is an owner, director, officer, or managing agent of the employer . . . .” (Lab. Code, § 558.1, subd. (b).) The Motion is supported by evidence that Stephenson and Bolton are owners and officers of Judgment Debtor. (Motion, Denisui Decl., ¶¶2-4; RJN, Exh. 2.) The Court grants Judgment Creditor’s request for judicial notice of Judgment Debtor’s Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary of State, pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c). Judgment Debtor’s Statement of Information lists Stephenson as Judgment Debtor’s Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, and Chief Financial Officer. (Id. at RJN, Exh. 2.) It also lists Bolton as Judgment Debtor’s director. (Ibid.) This evidence demonstrates a basis for liability against Stephenson and Bolton as Judgment Debtor’s alter egos.

Judgment Debtor filed an opposition that appears to be based on lack of service of the judgment. No authority is cited for why this is a basis to deny the motion to amend judgment. (Opp., p. 1:14-18.) The opposition also cites a case for the proposition that a person’s mere status as owners, directors, or officers, without a showing of personal involvement is not sufficient to impose liability. The case cited is a Superior Court case, Sydney v. HB Business Solutions, Inc., Case No. 21STCV12338, which is not controlling authority.

Therefore, Judgment Creditor Marius Denisiu’s Motion to Amend Judgment is GRANTED. JUDGMENT CREDITOR IS TO FILE A PROPOSED AMENDED JUDGMENT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.