Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: BC721299, Date: 2022-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC721299    Hearing Date: December 21, 2022    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Plaintiff Nelson Ochoa’s Motion to Amend Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Factual background

This is an action for Labor Code violations. The Complaint alleges as follows. Plaintiff Alex Sandoval (“Sandoval”) worked for Defendant Supra National Express, Inc. (“Supra”) as a truck driver from March 2013 through May 31, 2017. (Compl. ¶¶ 12-13.) During this time, Supra failed to pay Sandoval overtime compensation and failed to provide statutory meal and rest breaks. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-17.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On September 10, 2018, Sandoval filed the Complaint asserting six causes of action:

1.    Failure to Pay Wages;

2.    Failure to Pay Overtime;

3.    Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods;

4.    Failure to Provide Itemized Wage Statements;

5.    Unfair Competition; and,

6.    Waiting Time Penalties

On April 16, 2019, this Court granted Supra’s Motion to Compel Arbitration.

On June 19, 2020, Sandoval filed a Notice of Settlement of the Entire Case.

On July 2, 2020, this Court granted the parties’ Joint Stipulation to Retain Jurisdiction Under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, Pursuant to Settlement.

On May 17, 2021, Sandoval filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement.

On June 10, 2021, the Court granted Sandoval’s Motion to Enforce Settlement.

On August 12, 2021, the Court entered judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendant Supra National Express, Inc. in the amount of $291,864.40.

On August 15, 2022, Sandoval filed the instant Motion to Amend Judgment.

No Opposition has been filed.

DISCUSSION 

Sandoval moves the Court to Amend Judgment to add Daniel Linares (“Daniel”), Humberto Linares (“Humberto”), and Maria Linares (“Maria”) as Judgment Debtors pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.

Daniel was Supra’s CEO, Secretary, Director, and Agent for Service of Process at the time of settlement. (Friedman Decl. at ¶ 6; Ex. 3.) On January 27, 2022, Humberto replaced Daniel as CEO and Agent for Service of Process and Maria replaced Daniel as Secretary. (Friedman Decl. at ¶ 7; Ex. 4.)

Under CCP section 128, the Court has the power to amend and control processes and orders to make its judgments speak the truth and to ensure that its orders are carried out in the manner that conforms to justice and the Court’s intention. (Bloniarz v. Roloson (1969) 70 Cal.2d 143, 148.) 

The trial court is authorized to amend a judgment to add judgment debtors. [Citation.] (Relentless Air Racing, LLC v. Airborne Turbine, Ltd. Partnership (2013) 222 Cal.App.4^th 811.) The judgment may be amended to add additional judgment debtors on the ground that a person or entity is the alter ego of the original judgment debtor. (Ibid.) It is an equitable procedure based on the theory that the court is not amending the judgment to add a new defendant but is merely inserting the correct name of the real defendant. (Ibid.) The decision to grant an amendment lies in the sound discretion of the trial court. (Ibid) Great liberality is allowed in granting such amendments. (Ibid.)

In order to prevail in a motion to add judgment debtors, [movant] 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. (Ibid.)

Here, Sandoval argues that Labor Code section 558(1)(a) allows the Court to treat Daniel, Humberto, and Maria as Supra’s alter egos.

Labor Code section 558(1)(a) states:

Any employer or other person acting on behalf of any employer, who violates, or causes to be violated, any provision regulating minimum wages or hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission. . . may be held liable as the employer for such violation.

Sandoval notes that, though no case law exists stating that section 558(1)(a) may be used to impart liability after judgment is rendered, the Honorable Rafael Ongkeko elected to do so in his July 21, 2020 tentative.

However, this Court need not consider the propriety of imparting liability post-judgment pursuant to Labor Code section 558(1)(a). Sandoval has provided no evidence demonstrating that Daniel, Humberto, or Maria violated or caused a violation of a provision regulating wage and time rules, as required by section 558(1)(a).

Though Daniel signed the Settlement Agreement on behalf of Supra, he was neither a named party nor was he addressed in the Complaint. Moreover, Humberto and Maria’s association with Supra began only after the settlement agreement was entered; Sandoval does not address how this renders them responsible for a wage and hour violation.

Simply put, the Court cannot find that adding these parties as judgment debtors constitutes “not amending the judgment to add a new defendant but [] merely inserting the correct name of the real defendant” as there is no indication of the parties’ relationship to the alleged offenses.

Accordingly, Sandoval’s Motion to Amend Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

DATED: December 21, 2022 

____________________________ 

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court