Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCP03153, Date: 2023-03-13 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 21STCP03153    Hearing Date: March 13, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion to Amend Judgment to Add Contrast Eye Films, LLC as Judgment Debtor

Moving Party:  Judgment Creditor Suzanne Stanford.

Resp. Party:    None

        Judgment Creditor’s Motion is GRANTED. The Judgment dated September 23, 2021 is amended so that Contrast Eye Films, LLC is added as a Judgment Debtor. The Judgment is further amended to add $10,281.24 in accrued interest, for a total judgment amount of $80,293.44.

BACKGROUND:

On September 20, 2021, Plaintiff Suzanne Stanford filed her Request that Clerk Enter Judgment and Judgment on Final Order, Decision or Award of the Labor Commissioner. The requested judgment was to be entered against Defendant Contrast Eye LLC.

On September 23, 2021, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff (now Judgment Creditor) and against Defendant (now Judgment Debtor) in the amount of $70,012.20.

On February 1, 2023, Judgment Creditor filed her Motion to Amend Judgment to Add Contrast Eye Films, LLC as Judgment Debtor. Judgment Creditor concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Suzanne Stanford; (2) Declaration of Christine Johnson; (3) Request for Judicial Notice; (4) MC-012, Memorandum of Costs after Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest; (5) Proposed Amended Judgment; and (6) Proof of Service.

No opposition or other response has been filed.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following items:

(1)       Articles of Organization of Contrast Eye LLC, filed with the California Secretary of State on October 20, 2010;

(2)       Statement of Information filed by Contrast Eye LLC with the California Secretary of State on January 21, 2011;

(3)       Articles of Organization of Contrast Eye Films, LLC, filed with the California Secretary of State on March 27, 2019;

(4)       Statement of Information filed by Contrast Eye Films, LLC with the California Secretary of State on January 21, 2011;

(5)       A printout from the California Secretary of State’s website indicating that Contrast Eye LLC’s corporate statute was suspended on April 1, 2015; and

(6)       The Judgment entered against Contrast Eye LLC on September 23, 2021.

Judicial notice is GRANTED to the first five items.

Judicial notice is DENIED as superfluous to the sixth item. Any party that wishes to draw the Court’s attention to a matter filed in this action may simply cite directly to the document by execution and filing date. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(d).)¿

II.        Legal Standard

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 187.)

“Pursuant to [Code of Civil Procedure] section 187, a trial court has jurisdiction to modify a judgment to add additional judgment debtors.” (McClellan v. Northridge Park Townhome Owners Ass’n (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 746, 752.)

“A successor to a judgment debtor shall be liable for any wages, damages, and penalties owed to any of the judgment debtor’s former workforce pursuant to a final judgment, after the time to appeal therefrom has expired and for which no appeal therefrom is pending. Successorship is established upon meeting any of the following criteria:

(1)       “Uses substantially the same facilities or substantially the same workforce to offer substantially the same services as the judgment debtor. This factor does not apply to employers who maintain the same workforce pursuant to Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 1060) of Part 3.

(2)       “Has substantially the same owners or managers that control the labor relations as the judgment debtor.

(3)       “Employs as a managing agent any person who directly controlled the wages, hours, or working conditions of the affected workforce of the judgment debtor. The term managing agent has the same meaning as in subdivision (b) of Section 3294 of the Civil Code.

(4)       “Operates a business in the same industry and the business has an owner, partner, officer, or director who is an immediate family member of any owner, partner, officer, or director of the judgment debtor.”

(Lab. Code, § 200.3, subd. (a)(1)–(3).)

III.     Discussion

Judgment Creditor moves the Court to amend its Judgment dated September 23, 2021 to add Contrast Eye Films, LLC as a judgment debtor. (Motion, p. 10:19–20.) Judgment Creditor also moves the Court to amend the Judgment to reflect accrued interest. (Id. at p. 10:20–21.) Judgment Creditor argues that this relief is appropriate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 187, Labor Code section 200.3, and Code of Civil Procedure section 685.010.

No opposition or other response has been filed.

Judgment Creditor provides declarations that allege: (1) that the proposed judgment debtor, Contrast Eye Films, LLC, operates the same production company and provides the same services as existing judgment debtor, Contrast Eye LLC; (2) that the proposed judgment debtor has substantially the same owners or managers that control the labor relations as the existing judgment debtor; (3) the same manager or owner of the proposed judgment debtor directly controlled the wages, hours, or working conditions of the Judgment Creditor when Judgment Creditor worked for the existing judgment debtor; and (4) that the proposed judgment debtor operates a business in the same industry as the existing judgment debtor, and that the businesses share an owner, partner, officer, or director (Linda Kattam) who is the wife of an owner, partner, officer, or director (Osei Karkari) of the judgment debtor. (Decl. Stanford, ¶¶ 3–6, 10; Decl. Johnson, ¶¶ 3–4.)

        Based on the evidence submitted to the Court, the Court finds that Contrast Eye Films, LLC is a successor to Judgment Debtor Contrast Eye LLC. The Court further finds that, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 187 and Labor Code section 200.3, it is appropriate to amend the Judgment to include Contrast Eye Films, LLC as a judgment debtor.

        Finally, Judgment Creditor declares that Judgment Debtor Contrast Eye LLC has not paid her any money on the Judgment dated September 23, 2021. (Decl. Stanford, ¶ 17.) The Court finds that Judgment Creditor is entitled to $10,281.24 in accrued interest pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 685.010.

        The Court GRANTS Judgment Creditor’s Motion. The Judgment dated September 23, 2021 is amended so that Contrast Eye Films, LLC is added as a Judgment Debtor. The Judgment is further amended to add $10,281.24 in accrued interest, for a total judgment amount of $80,293.44.

IV.       Conclusion

        Judgment Creditor’s Motion is GRANTED. The Judgment dated September 23, 2021 is amended so that Contrast Eye Films, LLC is added as a Judgment Debtor. The Judgment is further amended to add $10,281.24 in accrued interest, for a total judgment amount of $80,293.44.