Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: TC022945, Date: 2023-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: TC022945    Hearing Date: January 3, 2023    Dept: A

TC022945 STI Demolition v. The Bedford Group, et al.,

Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER CONTINUING THE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT

On July 27, 2021, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District remanded this matter for the trial court to re-evaluate a motion to amend judgment previously filed by Plaintiff, STI Demolition, Inc., a construction company. The court’s file reflects that Plaintiff obtained a judgment for $108,863.70 against The Bedford Group (Bedford) after a bench trial. Plaintiff renewed the judgment on August 7, 2020, indicating that Defendant owed $212,571.58.

On August 6, 2020, the Hon. Maurice A. Leiter, denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment to add Charles Quarles as an additional defendant based on an alter ego theory. Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s ruling which was reversed.

Plaintiff refiled this motion on December 1, 2022, to add Mr. Quarles as a judgment debtor contending that Defendant Bedford is Mr. Quarles’ alter ego. Mr. Quarles allegedly diverted $2 million of Bedford’s money to pay personal debts. Bedford is a shell company with no employees or assets.

On December 1, 2022, Plaintiff served the motion on Mr. Quarles’ counsel, Michael Jay Berger, who did not file an opposition by December 20, 2022 (nine court days before the hearing). Code Civ. Proc., § 1005 subd. (b). However, Mr. Berger filed a declaration on December 29, 2022, stating that he first became aware of the motion upon receiving email from Plaintiff’s counsel indicating that the hearing would be continued to January 3, 2023. Berger Declaration, ¶ 3. Mr. Berger indicates he intends to request a continuance of the hearing.

The court has considered Mr. Berger’s declaration which also indicates that Plaintiff would not oppose a continuance. Berger Declaration ¶ 4. As Defendant has not filed an opposition, and in furtherance of the court’s policy favoring disposition on the merits (Mink v. Superior Court, (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338), the court continues the hearing to _____________________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department A of the Compton courthouse. The opposition shall be filed nine court days before the hearing, and the reply shall be filed five court days before the hearing. Code Civ. Proc., § 1005 subd. (b).