Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC02170, Date: 2024-06-03 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. 

 **Please note we no longer use CourtCall** 

Case Number: 21STLC02170    Hearing Date: June 3, 2024    Dept: 26

 

Davidson v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT

(CCP § 187)


TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Judgment Creditor Lisa Davidson’s Motion to Amend Judgment is CONTINUED TO AUGUST 5, 2024 AT 10:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. BY JULY 8, 2024, JUDGMENT CREDITOR IS TO FILE A PROOF OF SERVICE DEMONSTRATING SERVICE OF ALL THE MOTION PAPERS ON JUDGMENT DEBTOR. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE MOTION BEING DENIED.

 

 

ANALYSIS:

 

On March 15, 2021, Plaintiff Lisa Davidson (“Judgment Creditor”) filed the instant action against Defendant Rite Aid Corporation (“Judgment Debtor”). Default judgment was entered against Judgment Debtor on March 7, 2022.

 

On April 8, 2024, Judgment Creditor filed the instant Motion to Amend Judgment. No opposition has been filed to date.

 

Discussion

 

As an initial matter, the Motion to Amend Judgment is not accompanied by a proof of service demonstrating service of the Motion papers or notice of the hearing date on Judgment Debtor. Failure to give notice of a motion is not only a violation of the statutory requirements but of due process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005; Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.)

 

Regarding the merits, Judgment Creditor moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 187 to add “Thrift Payless, Inc.” as an additional judgment debtor.

 

“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 judgmentrb 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.)

 

Judgment Creditor moves on the grounds that Thrifty Payless, Inc. is Judgment Debtor’s business license name for the location where the incident occurred. The Motion cites the supporting declaration of Judgment Creditor’s attorney, Perrin Davidson and attached exhibits. (Motion, p. 3:9-15.) The exhibits demonstrate that the Sherrif’s Department would not serve the writ of execution to enforce the judgment because the business license name and judgment debtor name did not match. (Motion, Perrin Decl., ¶¶3-4 and Exhs. B-C.) Judgment Creditor verified that the business license name at the subject location is “Thrifty Payless, Inc.” (Id. at Exh. D.)

 

However, the hearing must be continued due to lack of service of the moving papers and notice of hearing on Judgment Debtor.

 

Conclusion

 

Judgment Creditor Lisa Davidson’s Motion to Amend Judgment is CONTINUED TO AUGUST 5, 2024 AT 10:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. BY JULY 8, 2024, JUDGMENT CREDITOR IS TO FILE A PROOF OF SERVICE DEMONSTRATING SERVICE OF ALL THE MOTION PAPERS ON JUDGMENT DEBTOR. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE MOTION BEING DENIED.

 

 

Moving party to give notice.