Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 19CMCV00304, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:

1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.

2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and

3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.

If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on. 

TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/ui/main.aspx?casetype=civil

Case Number: 19CMCV00304    Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    Dept: A

19CMCV00304 TMAT Properties, LLC v. Association for Retarded Citizens – Mid Cities, a CA Non-Profit Corp.

Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER TAKING OFF CALENDAR PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO CORRECT NAME OF DEFENDANT

The complaint, filed on October 18, 2019, alleges a claim for unlawful detainer against Defendant, Association for Retarded Citizens – Mid Cities, a CA Non-Profit Corp. (“ARC”) who failed to pay rent for commercial real property. The clerk entered ARC’s default on November 5, 2019. On March 23, 2020, the court entered judgment for $111,434.42 by default, including forfeiture of the lease.

Plaintiff moves to amend the judgment to reflect Defendant’s name change from ARC to “Mid-Cities Association, Inc., a CA Non-Profit Corp., formerly known as Association for Retarded Citizens – Mid Cities.” Plaintiff argues that Defendant amended its legal name on May 14, 2018, according to the California Secretary of State records of which Plaintiff was not aware. The amended judgment is necessary to pursue collection efforts.

The motion does not include a proof of service of the motion on Defendant. Nor does the court’s file reflect that Plaintiff filed a proof of service separately, which is a fatal defect.

Code of Civil Procedure section 187 confers on the court “all the means necessary to carry [its jurisdiction] into effect.” Id. The court may adopt “any suitable process or mode of proceeding” which may appear “most conformable to the spirit of this Code.” Id. This section gives the court "the discretion to create its own reasonable procedure in the exercise of its jurisdiction where the law provides no specific procedure, … includ[ing] the power to add a judgment debtor where a person or entity is an alter ego of the original judgment debtor.” Triyar Hospitality Management, LLC v. WSI (II) - HWP, LLC (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 636, 641. In doing so, the court is amending the judgment to add the real judgment debtor. Id.

Generally speaking, “once a judgment has been entered, the trial court loses its unrestricted power to change that judgment. The court does retain power to correct clerical errors in a judgment which has been entered. However, it may not amend such a judgment to substantially modify it or materially alter the rights of the parties under its authority to correct clerical error. [Citations.]’” Manson, Iver & York v. Black (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 36, 43. If the error does not appear on the face of the record, but must be proved by other evidence, a notice of motion to correct such an error is necessary since the substantial rights of the other party are involved. Manson at 44.

Here, as in Manson, the error does not appear on the face of the record. Unless the amendment merely corrects a clerical error on the face of the record, Plaintiff is required to give notice of the motion to the person whose rights will be substantially affected by the motion. In Manson, the court of appeal found that the trial court’s order amending the judgment without notice to the affected person was void as it affected that party’s substantial rights. Manson at 47.

Therefore, the motion is taken off calendar.