ADOLF GARCIA VS IGNACIO RAMIREZ

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: KC056176    Hearing Date: November 21, 2019    Dept: O

Judgment Creditor Adolf Garcia’s motion to amend the judgment is GRANTED.

Judgment Creditor Adolf Garcia (“Judgment Debtor”) moves to amend the judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 187.

Trial courts are permitted to modify or amend judgments as prescribed by statute. (Worth v. Asiatic Transpacific, Inc. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 849, 856; McCellan v. Northridge Park Townhomes Owners Ass’n, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 746; Wolf Metals Inc. v. Rand Pacific Sales, Inc. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 698, 709.)

Section 187 confers such authority on the courts. (Dow Jones Co., Inc. v. Avenal (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 144, 148-149.) While courts have utilized section to add a successor corporation as a judgment debtor, this is generally done when there is a showing that (1) the new party is the alter ego of the old party and (2) that the new party has controlled the litigation, thereby having had the opportunity to litigate. (Toho-Towa Co., Ltd. V. Morgan Creek Productions, Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1106.) This is done to satisfy due process concerns of imposing liability on the new defendant without trial. (Ibid.) The general rule is that a Court may amend its judgment at any time so that the judgment will properly designate the real defendants. (Dow Jones Co., Inc., supra, 151 Cal.App.3d at 148-149.)

Judgment in this matter was entered in favor of Judgment Debtor and against Defendant Ignacio Ramirez (“Defendant”) in the amount of $26,973.30 after Defendant defaulted. Defendant has only paid a small portion of the judgement and nothing has been paid for several years.

Judgment Creditor contends that he discovered during a much earlier judgment debtor examination that occurred in 2010, Defendant has been married to Theresa Ramirez for 40 years, and was married to her during the relevant time period of this case. At the most recent judgment debtor examination, Defendant testified that Theresa Ramirez took over the running of the family business of Havana Club Bar & Grill Restaurant and that they continue to live together in the same home in Upland, California despite Defendant’s claim that he initiated divorce proceedings some time ago.^[1] Judgment Creditor contends that the underlying debt was thus incurred for the benefit of Defendant and Theresa Ramirez. Therefore, under Code of Civil Procedure section 695.020, Theresa Ramirez was jointly responsible for Defendant’s debt as Defendant’s spouse.

Thus, there is substantial evidence that Theresa Ramirez should have been named a defendant in this case. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. There is no opposition.