Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC063456    Hearing Date: April 15, 2021    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58

Hearing Date: April 15, 2021

Case Name: Kagin, et al. v. New Gold, LLC, et al.

Case No.: EC063456

Matter: Motion for Charging Order

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Don Kagin and Kagin’s, Inc.

Responding Party: Unopposed

Tentative Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Plaintiffs and Judgment Creditors Don Kagin and Kagin’s, Inc. seek a charging order against the Judgment Debtor WACF Partners, LLC’s interest in Alan Entertainment Holdings, LLC.

As the Motion is unopposed, it is granted. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(c); Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4^th 1403, 1410.)

Case Number: EC063456    Hearing Date: October 16, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58

Hearing Date: October 16, 2020

Case Name: Kagin, et al. v. New Gold, LLC, et al.

Case No.: EC063456

Matter: Motion to Amend Judgment to Add Alter Ego

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Don Kagin and Kagin’s, Inc.

Responding Party: Unopposed

Tentative Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Plaintiffs Don Kagin and Kagin’s, Inc. seek an order amending the judgment in this action to add WACF Partners, LLC as a judgment debtor and requiring turnover of property in the possession, custody and control of WACF Partners, LLC. Plaintiffs contend WACF Partners, LLC is an alter ego of judgment debtor New Gold, LLC.

“The authority of a court to amend a judgment to add a nonparty alter ego as a judgment debtor has long been recognized. (See Mirabito v. San Francisco Dairy Co. (1935) 8 Cal.App.2d 54, 60, 47 P.2d 530.) ‘The ability under [Code Civ. Proc. §] 187 to amend a judgment to add a defendant, thereby imposing liability on the new defendant without trial, requires both (1) that the new party be the alter ego of the old party and (2) that the new party had controlled the litigation, thereby having had the opportunity to litigate, in order to satisfy due process concerns’ ” (Toho-Towa Co. Ltd. v. Morgan Creek Productions, Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4^th 1096, 1106.)

The alter ego doctrine is a rationale for disregarding a corporation’s separate legal existence. The general formulation consists of two components—a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and individual such that the corporation’s separate personality no longer exists, and an inequitable result if the individual were not held liable. “Before a corporation’s obligations can be recognized as those of a particular person, the requisite unity of interest and inequitable result must be shown.” (Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 411.) To analyze alter ego liability, courts consider a number of factors, including the commingling of funds and other assets, the holding out by one entity that it is liable for the debts of the other, identical equitable ownership, use of the same offices and employees, use of one as a mere shell or conduit for the affairs of the other, inadequate capitalization, disregard of corporate formalities, lack of segregation of corporate records, and identical directors and officers. (Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 538-539.)

As the Motion is unopposed, it is granted. (Code Civ. Proc. § 187; Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(c); Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4^th 1403, 1410.)