Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 20CHCV00725, Date: 2023-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 20CHCV00725    Hearing Date: January 4, 2023    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 1/4/23

Case #20CHCV00725

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT

Motion filed on 8/31/22.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant ROI Motor Sport Collision Center

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order amending the Judgment against ROI Motor Sport Collision Center to add another judgment debtor, ROI Motor Sport Collision Center, Inc.

RULING: The motion is granted. 

On 3/24/22, this Court entered Default Judgment against Defendant ROI Motor Sport Collision Center (ROI).  (See Jeevaprakash Decl. ¶2, Ex.A).  Despite being registered as a corporation, as indicated on the California Secretary of State website, ROI is named as “ROI Motor Sport Collision Center,” without an entity indicator such as “Inc.” or “Corp.”  (Id. ¶7, Ex.H).  On 5/12/22, counsel for Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Plaintiff) filed a Writ of Execution with the Court that included the designation “(corporation)” in order to identify the type of legal entity that ROI is, as indicated by the Judicial Council form for box #4 for a Writ of Execution.  (Id. ¶3, Ex.B).  On the same date, the court rejected the Writ as submitted, stating, among other things,  and in reference to box #4, that “Debtor names must be verbatim as stated on Judgment and court records.”  (Id. ¶3, Ex.C).  Subsequently, the Writ was revised, including removing the designation “(corporation),” and filed again with the court.  On 5/19/22, the Writ of Execution was issued by the Clerk of this Court.  (Id. ¶4, Ex.D). 

Plaintiff, through its counsel’s vendor, attempted to open the levy file with the Sheriff so that a bank levy could be served on a bank where ROI is believed to hold (or at one time to have held) one or more accounts.  (Jeevaprakash Decl. ¶5).  However, the Sheriff responded back with a Memo, dated 7/26/22, indicating that the Sheriff had rejected the Sheriff Instructions for the bank levy, stating, among other things, that the “WRIT FOR ROI MOTORSPORT COLLISION NEEDS A BUSINESS ENTITY ON #4,” and instructing, “HAVE A NEW WRIT ISSUED WITH CORRECTIONS.”  (Id.; Ex.E).  Despite numerous requests, the Sheriff has refused to open the levy file with how ROI is presently named in the Writ of Execution issued by the Court. (Id. ¶5).  On 8/9/22, in an attempt to satisfy the Sheriff’s requirements, Plaintiff submitted a revised Writ of Execution to the court, with the designation “a Corporation” after ROI’s corporate name.  However, the court, also, rejected the revised Writ.  (Id. ¶6, Ex.F).  The Rejection Notice stated, among other things, and in reference to box #4, “Debtor name must be verbatim to Judgment submitted/entered….”  (Id., Ex.G). 

Therefore, on 8/31/22, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order amending the Judgment against ROI Motor Sport Collision Center to add another judgment debtor, ROI Motor Sport Collision Center, Inc.  The motion is unopposed. 

It has been held that CCP 187, upon motion, gives trial courts the power to amend a judgment to add judgment debtors.  See Greenspan (2010) 191 CA4th 486, 508; Highland Springs Conference Training Center (2016) 244 CA4th 267, 280.  CCP 187 provides:

“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.”

To have the Court add judgment debtors, the judgment creditor must show that: (1) the parties to be added as judgment debtors had control of the underlying litigation and were virtually represented in that proceeding; (2) there is such a unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the entity and the owners no longer exist; and (3) an inequitable result will follow if the acts are treated as those of the entity alone.  Relentless Air Racing LLC (2013) 222 CA4th 811, 815-816.  The party seeking to add a judgment debtor has the burden of proving the facts essential to the granting of the motion by a preponderance of the evidence.  Wollersheim (1999) 69 CA4th 1012, 1017.  Whether to grant such a motion rests in “the sound discretion of the trial court.”  Greenspan supra.   

Here, Plaintiff has obtained a Default Judgment against ROI, in which it named the Judgment Debtor as “ROI Motor Sport Collision Center” based on how ROI is registered with the California Secretary of State.  As such, the Writ of Execution issued by the court also lists the Judgment Debtor as “ROI Motor Sport Collision Center.”  However, as noted above, because ROI is a registered California corporation but does not have an entity indicator in its name (such as “Inc.” or “Corp.”), the Sheriff has refused to open a bank levy without a Writ of Execution that indicates what type of entity ROI is.  Additionally, the court has indicated that it cannot issue a new Writ with a corporation entity indicator for ROI because ROI is listed as the Judgment Debtor in the Judgment without an entity indicator. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met the requirements to amend the judgment as requested and exercises its power pursuant to CCP 187 to amend the Default Judgment to add a Judgment Debtor by the name of “ROI Motor Sport Collision Center, Inc.” so that a new Writ of Execution can be issued that will have ROI named in a way that identifies it as a corporation to the Sheriff.

Plaintiff is ordered to submit an amended Default Judgment in accordance with this ruling.