On 01/02/2015 DON KAGIN, AN INDIVIDUAL filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against NEW GOLD LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Glendale Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JOHN P. DOYLE. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
****3456
01/02/2015
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Glendale Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JOHN P. DOYLE
KAGIN DON AN INDIVIDUAL
KAGIN'S INC A CALIFORNIA CORP
CT GROUP INC A CALIFORNIA CORP.
NEW GOLD LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED
WOJDAK PAUL AN INDIVIDUAL
VARTIAN ARMEN R.
NATALIE ORTIZ
Court documents are not available for this case.
Proof of Service Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Appl. & Ord. for appearance & exam (JUDGMENT DEBTOR: PAUL WOJDAK SET ON 04/15/16 ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Appl. & Ord. for appearance & exam (JUDGMENT DEBTOR: PAUL WOJDAK ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Notice of Entry of Judgment Filed by Court
Default Judgment Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Req for Entry of Court's Judgment (PROCESSED/SUBMITTED ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Declaration (OF ARMEN VARTIAN IN SUPPORT OF PLTFS' REQUEST FOR DEFAULT J JUDGMENT ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Declaration (OF FRANCES FRIDELL IN SUPPORT OF APPL FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT UNDER CCP SECTION 585(d) ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Notice (OF O.S.C. ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Notice (OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Req for Entry of Clerk's Judgment (you are only allowed one judgment per case; A form Jud 100 must be submitted with the request for en- try of clerk's/court judgment ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Request for Entry of Default Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Default Entered Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Request for Entry of Default (ITEM #5 C.C.P. SECTION 585.5 DECL. IS INCOMPLETE; THE PARTY REQUEST- ING THE ENTRY OF DEAULT DID NOT SIGN THE REQUEST ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Proof of Service Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Answer (OF DEFENDANT PAUL WOJDAK ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant
Proof-Service/Summons Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Proof-Service/Summons Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Complaint filed-Summons Issued Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Summons Filed Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Case Number: EC063456 Hearing Date: April 15, 2021 Dept: 58
Judge John P. Doyle
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.4th 1403, 1410.)
Case Number: EC063456 Hearing Date: October 16, 2020 Dept: 58
Judge John P. Doyle
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.4th 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.4th 1403, 1410.)