INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB, AN INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE VS HECTOR MORESENO, AN INDIVIDUAL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 17STLC03699    Hearing Date: September 28, 2020    Dept: 26

Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club v. Moreseno, et al.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (hereafter “Judgment Creditor”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendant Hector Moreseno (hereafter “Judgment Debtor”). On August 13, 2018, the Court entered judgment in favor of Judgment Creditor and against Judgment Debtor. On June 14, 2019, Judgment Creditor filed an Affidavit of Identity and Order contending that Judgment Debtor is also known by the names Hector Moreno, Jr. and Hector Moreno. (Affidavit of Identity, filed 6/14/19.) The Affidavit of Identity was rejected on the same date with instructions that Judgment Creditor was to proceed by noticed motion.

Judgment Creditor filed the instant Motion to Include Additional Names of Judgment Debtor on the Writ of Execution or Abstract of Judgment (“Motion”) on October 15, 2019. The Motion initially came for hearing on March 12, 2020, at which time the Court continued the matter for further briefing. (Minute Order, 3/12/20.) Specifically, the Court ordered Judgment Creditor to provide further evidence that Judgment Debtor was correctly named and served in this action as Hector Moreseno in the first instance. (Ibid.)

To date, however, no supplemental papers have been filed. Judgment Creditor was warned that failure to comply with the Court’s orders may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied. Additionally, following multiple continuances of the hearing date, Judgment Creditor was instructed to give notice of the new hearing date to Judgment Debtor. However, no proof of service of the continued hearing date has been filed with the Court demonstrating that Judgment Debtor was given notice of the September 24, 2020 hearing date.

Based on these defects in notice of the hearing date and in the substantive merits of the Motion, Judgment Creditor Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s Motion to Include Additional Names of Judgment Debtor on Writ of Execution or Abstract of Judgment’s is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 17STLC03699    Hearing Date: March 12, 2020    Dept: 26

Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club v. Moreseno, et al.

MOTION TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL NAMES OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR ON WRIT OF EXECUTION OR ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT

(CCP § 680.135)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Judgment Creditor Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s Motion to Include Additional Names of Judgment Debtor on Writ of Execution or Abstract of Judgment’s is CONTINUED TO MAY 14, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (hereafter “Judgment Creditor”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendant Hector Moreseno (hereafter “Judgment Debtor”). On August 13, 2018, the Court entered judgment in favor of Judgment Creditor and against Judgment Debtor. On June 14, 2019, Judgment Creditor filed an Affidavit of Identity and Order contending that Judgment Debtor is also known by the names Hector Moreno, Jr. and Hector Moreno. (Affidavit of Identity, filed 6/14/19.) The Affidavit of Identity was rejected on the same date with instructions that Judgment Creditor was to proceed by noticed motion.

Judgment Creditor filed the instant Motion to Include Additional Names of Judgment Debtor on Writ of Execution or Abstract of Judgment on October 15, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

Judgment Creditor moves to add additional purported names of Judgment Debtor to the writ of execution or abstract of judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 680.135, which states:

“Affidavit of Identity” means an affidavit or declaration executed by a judgment creditor, under penalty of perjury, that is filed with the clerk of the court in which the judgment is entered at the time the judgment creditor files for a writ of execution or an abstract of judgment. The affidavit of identity shall set forth the case name and number, the name of the judgment debtor stated in the judgment, the additional name or names by which the judgment debtor is known, and the facts upon which the judgment creditor has relied in obtaining the judgment debtor's additional name or names. The affidavit of identity shall not include the name or names of persons, including any corporations, partnerships, or any legal entities not separately named in the judgment in which the judgment debtor is a partner, shareholder, or member, other than the judgment debtor.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 680.135.) The declaration confusingly states that “Plaintiff obtained default judgment against Defendant Hector Moreseno on August 13, 2018. As to Defendant Perez, the name of the judgment debtor as stated in the judgment is: HECTOR MORESENO, an individual.” (Motion, Tapper Decl., Exh. A at ¶2 (emphasis added).) The declaration in support of the Affidavit of Identity goes on to state that “Plaintiff submitted a request to suspend Defendant Jarecki's drivers license … .” (Id. at Exh. A at ¶3 (emphasis added).) As there are no Defendants by the names of Perez or Jarecki in this action, these statements make no sense.

Judgment Creditor also provides a copy of a Department of Motor Vehicles’ Driver Record Information for driver’s license number F7455200, but the supporting declaration states the record is for driver’s license number F5597214. (Id. at Exh. A at ¶5 and Exh. A.) No information is provided to demonstrate which driver’s license pertains to Judgment Debtor. Finally, Judgment Creditor contends that it ran a LexisNexis Accurint Search as to Judgment Debtor when in fact the search terms were for the address 9240 Balfour Street, Pico Rivera, California, 90660. (Id. at Exh A at ¶6 and Exh. B.) The LexisNexis Accurint Search shows that address is good for “Hector Moreno,” “Hector Moreno, Jr.” and “Hector J. Moreno, Jr.” (Ibid.) The Balfour address is where Judgment Debtor was sub-served with the Summons and Complaint. (Proof of Service, filed 1/22/18.) That the address where Judgment Debtor was served matches the address on the LexisNexis Accurint Search is the strongest evidence that Judgment Debtor is also known as “Hector Moreno,” “Hector Moreno, Jr.” and “Hector J. Moreno, Jr.”

However, the Court is concerned as to whether Judgment Debtor has been sued by the correct name. The LexisNexis Accurint Search does not show that any person by the name “Hector Moreseno” is associated with the Balfour address. Judgment Creditor, therefore, must demonstrate to the Court that Judgment Debtor is correctly named in this action.

Based on the foregoing, the hearing on Motion to Include Additional Names of Judgment Debtor on Writ of Execution or Abstract of Judgment is CONTINUED TO MAY 14, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE, PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE AND SERVE SUPPLEMENTAL PAPERS DEMONSTRATING THAT JUDGMENT DEBTOR IS CORRECTLY NAMED IN THIS ACTION. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE MOTION BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR OR DENIED.