Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 19CMCV00304, Date: 2023-01-31 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: January 31, 2023    Dept: A

`19CMCV00304 TMAT Properties, LLC v. Association for Retarded Citizens – Mid Cities

Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING 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. Plaintiff requests an order adding post-judgment interest of $29,278.27 as documented in its Memorandum of Costs after Judgment filed on November 7, 2022.

Plaintiff served Defendant by overnight delivery with the motion and supporting papers and notice of continued hearing date on Defendant on December 22, 2022. Defendant’s opposition was due on January 18, 2023 (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b) [an opposition is due nine court days before the hearing].  The Court’s file does not reflect that Defendant filed an opposition.

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.  Here, Plaintiff seeks to correct the name of the judgment debtor to reflect its true name, which is permitted. Mirabito v. San Francisco Dairy Co. (1935) 8 Cal.App.2d 54, 60 ["The rule has long been declared in California that where the facts warrant, courts may amend pleadings to correctly designate the parties actually involved, even though the statute of limitations has run in favor of the party substituted."]. Once the court acquires jurisdiction of the person and the subject of the action, "it necessarily possessed the power to correct a misnomer." Mirabito at 60. Where the evidence is sufficient to warrant a conclusion that “two corporations are identical” there is no basis for a different rule. Id.

Plaintiff’s evidence, consisting of records of the California Secretary of State shows that Defendant ARC filed its Articles of Incorporation on July 1, 1993, bearing file number 0292449. Plaintiff’s Ex. E. ARC changed its name to Arc Mid-Cities, Inc. pursuant to a Certificate of Amendment filed November 9, 2015, and bearing the same file number 0292449. Plaintiff’s Ex. E, .pdf page 45.

Plaintiff served Defendant with summons and complaint on October 21, 2019, at its principal place of business identified in its Statement of Information as 1408 Towne Avenue, Los Angeles, CA (proof of service filed 10/28/19), See Statement of Information filed May 16, 2017 at California Secretary of State’s website: bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov. Thus, Defendant was properly served, giving the Court personal and subject matter jurisdiction. The evidence establishes that Defendant ARC and Arc Mid-Cities, Inc. are the same corporation.

Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff has lodged a proposed order.