Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 20CMCV00186, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20CMCV00186    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: A

­­­SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT [COMPTON]

DEPARTMENT A

            The complaint, filed on July 20, 2020, alleges that on January 29, 2020, Plaintiff mistakenly and inadvertently wired $52,805.48 to Defendant, HS SPORTS, INC., A California Corporation. Plaintiff intended to wire the funds to HI Sport, Inc. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is not entitled to the funds but failed and refused to return it. Plaintiff alleges a claim for money had and received. Plaintiff served Defendant with the summons and complaint on October 6, 2020, by substituted service on the California Secretary of State. On December 8, 2020, the court entered the Defendant’s default.  On February 9, 2021, the court entered judgment against Defendant, for $52,805.48.

            Plaintiff filed this motion on July 25, 2022, to add the name of Mark H. Park, individually, to the judgment. Plaintiff contends that Mr. Park is the alter ego of Defendant. The judgment as entered contains a “misnomer” as it fails to include Mr. Park’s name. Plaintiff argues that amending a judgment to add an alter ego is an equitable procedure as the court is not adding a defendant but is correcting the name of the defendant/debtor.

            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.

            To prevail on a motion to add judgment debtors, the moving party 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 v. Airborne Turbine Ltd. Partnership (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 811, 815–816.

            Plaintiff proposes to insert an individual person’s name as a judgment debtor in addition to Defendant, HS Sports, Inc. 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 if substantial rights are involved. Id. 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. Id. at 47. The court’s file reflects that Plaintiff personally served Mr. Park with this motion on July 27, 2022.

            Plaintiff did not submit any evidence to support a finding that Mr. Park had control of the underlying litigation and was “virtually represented” in that proceeding. There is no evidence to support a finding that there is a unity of interest and ownership between Mr. Park and Defendant such that the separate personalities of the entity and the owner no longer exists or that an inequitable result will follow if the acts are treated as those of the entity alone. Relentless, supra, at 815-816.

            Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.