Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV01151, Date: 2025-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV01151    Hearing Date: January 17, 2025    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 1/17/25

Case #23CHCV01151

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT

Motion filed on 5/6/24.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Gary Grant

RESPONDING PARTY: Non-Party McFarlane Girls, Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order amending the Default Judgment entered on 7/25/23 to add McFarlane Girls, Inc. as an alter ego judgment debtor pursuant to CCP 187.

RULING: The motion is granted. 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On 4/20/23, Plaintiff Gary Grant (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendant One876 Caribbean Restaurant, LLC (Defendant) for: (1) Failure to Provide Required Mean Periods (Labor Code 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197; IWC Wage Orders); (2) Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods (Labor Code 226.7, 512; IWC Wage Orders); (3) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages (Labor Code 510, 1194, 1198; IWC Wage Orders); (4) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages (Labor Code 1194, 1197; IWC Wage Orders); (5) Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment (Labor Code 204); (6) Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees (Labor Code 201, 202, 203); (7) Failure to Maintain Required Records (Labor Code 226, 1174; IWC Wage Orders); (8) Failure to Furnish Accurate, Itemized Wage Statements (Labor Code 226; IWC Wage Orders) and (9) Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices. 

After Defendant failed to respond to the complaint, default was entered against Defendant on 6/14/23.  Thereafter, on 7/25/23, the Court entered default judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $26,371.85.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant misled Plaintiff to believe he was employed by Defendant when Plaintiff was actually employed by McFarlane Girls, Inc.  Plaintiff contends that during his workers compensation filing against Defendant after the default judgment, he discovered that Defendant was a mere shell to cover up McFarlane Girls, Inc. (the Alter Ego Entity) which Plaintiff claims holds the assets and liabilities for the business that employed Plaintiff.  (Idrees Decl.).

Plaintiff contends that there was no active entity that existed at the inception of Plaintiff’s employment.  Rather, Defendant, while bearing the same name as the restaurant Plaintiff was employed in, did not exist as an entity until 11/3/21, which occurred after Plaintiff was already employed.  (Idrees Decl. ¶4, Ex.B).  Plaintiff contends the Alter Ego Entity was not registered as an active entity with the California Secretary of State until filing the first Statement of Information on 12/22/22.  (Id. ¶5, Ex.C).

Plaintiff notes that Defendant and Alter Ego Entity both have their principal and mailing address registered to 20869 Lassen Street, Chatsworth, CA 91311 – the address where One876 Caribbean Restaurant operates.  (Id. ¶6).  Additionally, the owner of both Alter Ego Entity and Defendant, Trudy Gray, is also listed as the agent for service of process under both Alter Ego Entity and Defendant.  Id.  Defendant and Alter Ego Entity are both listed as a “Restaurant” business.  (Id.

¶7, Ex.D).  Public records also show Alter Ego Entity is recognized as the entity that operates One876 Caribbean Restaurant and have their business phone number registered as (818) 678-9252, which is the phone number for store operations of One876 Caribbean Restaurant. (Id. ¶8, Ex.E).

On 11/17/23, Plaintiff filed his first motion seeking an order amending the Default Judgment entered on 7/25/23 to add McFarlane Girls, Inc. as an alter ego judgment debtor pursuant to CCP 187.  That motion was placed off calendar due to service issues.  (See 5/1/24 Minute Order).    

On 5/6/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motion which seeks the same relief.  On 5/30/24, Plaintiff  filed a proof of service indicating that Trudy Gray, the owner of Defendant and Alter Ego Entity, was served with the motion via substituted service on 5/23/24 with subsequent mailing occurring on 5/29/24.  (See 5/30/24 Proof of Service).

No opposition or other response to the motion has been filed.      

ANALYSIS

The Court has the authority to amend its judgment to add a non-party alter ego judgment debtor, such as McFarlane Girls, Inc/the Alter Ego Entity.  See Dow Jones Co. (1984) 151 CA3d 144, 148-149; Greenspan (2010) 191 CA4th 486, 508; Hall, Goodhue, Haisley & Barker, Inc. (1996) 41 CA4th 1551, 1554-1555; Misik (2011) 197 CA4th 1065, 1074-1075; CCP 187; CCP 989.

Such an amendment to a judgment merely sets forth the true name of the defendant and does not add a new defendant.  Misik, supra at 1072; Triplett (1994) 24 CA4th 1415, 1420; Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Corp. (1999) 75 CA4th 110, 116.

When determining a motion to add a judgment debtor, courts look for a “unity of interest” between the entities to ensure the alter ego’s interests were adequately represented in the litigation.  See Relentless Air Racing, LLC (2013) 222 CA4th 811, 816; NEC Electronics, Inc. v (1989) 208 CA3d 772, 780-781.  Such an amendment is even allowed when the judgment creditor knew of an alter ego relationship before judgment is entered, if the interests of the alter ego and judgment debtor are identical.  Relentless Air Racing, LLC, supra; NEC Electronics, Inc., supra. 

Here, after Plaintiff obtained a default judgment against Defendant, Plaintiff learned that Defendant misled him to believe the Alter Ego Entity was not his employer and continued to operate the business under the name of the Alter Ego Entity.  (See Idrees Decl. and exhibits attached thereto).  Plaintiff has shown that publicly available information establishes that Defendant and the Alter Ego Entity share a unity of interest such that the Alter Ego Entity’s interests were adequately represented.  As noted above, Plaintiff has uncovered evidence that shows that Defendant and Alter Ego Entity, have the same business and principal address listed on the California Secretary of State website: 20869 Lassen Street, Chatsworth, CA, 91311.  The principal and business address listed for Alter Ego Entity is the exact address that Plaintiff was employed at when employed by Defendant.  Defendant and Alter Ego Entity have the same phone number.  Further, both Defendant and Alter Ego Entity have the same owner and agent for service of process: Trudy Gray, 20869 Lassen Street, Chatsworth, CA 91311.  Further, in the workers compensation case filed by Plaintiff, Alter Ego Entity was listed as the insured-employer, while Defendant represented to Plaintiff that the Alter Ego Entity was not the employer.

Such evidence is sufficient to support amending the judgment to add the Alter Ego Entity as a judgment debtor.  See Toho-Towa Co., Ltd. (2013) 217 CA4th 1096, 1105.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted.