Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case Number: 23GDCV02198, Date: 2024-07-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ralph C. Hofer, Case: 23GDCV02198, Date: 2024-07-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV02198 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Dept: D

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 11

Date: 7/12/2024

Case No: 23 GDCV02198

Case Name: Pacific Western Bank v. Arshakyan, et al.

MOTION FOR ORDER CHANGING NAME

Moving Party: Banc of California formerly known as Pacific Western Bank

Responding Party: Defendants Arman Arshakyan and Libre Express, Inc.

(No Opposition)

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Order changing Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor’s name and that all further pleadings reflect Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor’s new name Banc of California

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:

This action was filed by plaintiff Pacific Western Bank to collect sums allegedly owed to plaintiff by defendant Libre Express, Inc. pursuant to two loan agreements evidenced by promissory notes in favor of plaintiff, which agreements were guaranteed by defendant and Arman Arshakyan.

The file shows on December 18, 2023, plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default as to defendants, which default was entered as requested the same date.

On February 15, 2024, a Judgment by Default by the court was entered, based on plaintiff’s written declaration, entering judgment for plaintiff and against defendants in the total sum of $59,869.03.

ANALYSIS:

The motion is brought by Banc of California, formerly known as Pacific Western Bank, seeking an order changing plaintiff/judgment creditor’s name and that all further pleadings reflect the new name.

It is not stated how this third party has standing to pursue this relief, when it is not a named party to this action. It would appear that in the absence of legal authority permitting a third party to seek this relief in this action, the motion should be brought by plaintiff/judgment creditor Pacific Western Bank.

The motion argues that the order changing name is necessary, so the record reflects the correct name of judgment creditor going forward. There is no legal authority cited in the moving papers.

Ordinarily in such a situation, the judgment creditor would proceed pursuant to CCP section 673, which provides:

“(a) An assignee of a right represented by a judgment may become an assignee of record by filing with the clerk of the court which entered the judgment an acknowledgment of assignment of judgment.

(b) An acknowledgment of assignment of judgment shall contain all of the following:

(1) The title of the court where the judgment is entered and the cause and number of the action.

(2) The date of entry of the judgment and of any renewals of the judgment and where entered in the records of the court.

(3) The name and address of the judgment creditor and name and last known address of the judgment debtor.

(4) A statement describing the right represented by the judgment that is assigned to the assignee.

(5) The name and address of the assignee.

(1) Made in the manner of an acknowledgment of a conveyance of real property.

(2) Executed and acknowledged by the judgment creditor or by the prior assignee of record if there is one.

(d)(1) If an acknowledgment of assignment of judgment purports to be executed or acknowledged by an authorized agent of the judgment creditor or an authorized agent of a prior assignee of record, then documentation sufficient to evidence that authorization shall be filed together with the acknowledgment of assignment of judgment.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an assignee of a right represented by a judgment may also become an assignee of record by filing with the clerk of the court that entered judgment a court order or other documentation that evidences assignment of judgment by operation of law.”

There has been no acknowledgment of assignment filed by the moving party, and certainly no document complying with the provisions of subdivisions (b) or (c). No document including the required information has been filed, and no document is submitted which is executed and acknowledged by the judgment creditor or any prior assignee of record.

Moving party submits a declaration of counsel, who is not the judgment creditor, and cannot authenticate or testify to any current status or relationship of plaintiff, which does not include the required information, but states that effective December 1, 2023, Banc of California, N.A. merged into Pacific Western Bank, with the surviving bank’s name changed to Banc of California, and attaches what purports to be a State of California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation Certificate of Merger. [Khatchadourian Decl., para. 3]. This is not an appropriate acknowledgment of assignment.

In addition, the Certificate of Merger is not properly authenticated by an attorney for the judgment creditor with no facts which would indicate that the attorney has personal knowledge concerning the matters in which the judgment creditor is involved.

This documentation in any case fails to constitute an acknowledgment of assignment or the filing of “a court order or other documentation that evidences assignment of judgment by operation of law.” The relief cannot be granted on this showing. The motion is denied.

RULING:

[No Opposition]

Motion for Order Changing Plaintiff’s Name is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE

AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances. However, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.

If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or no appearance is otherwise made, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.