Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/22/2016 at 20:37:50 (UTC).

DON KAGIN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS. NEW GOLD LLC

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3456

  • Filing Date:

    01/02/2015

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Glendale Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JOHN P. DOYLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

KAGIN DON AN INDIVIDUAL

KAGIN'S INC A CALIFORNIA CORP

Defendants

CT GROUP INC A CALIFORNIA CORP.

NEW GOLD LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED

WOJDAK PAUL AN INDIVIDUAL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

VARTIAN ARMEN R.

Defendant Attorney

NATALIE ORTIZ

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/16/2016
  • Proof of Service Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2016
  • Appl. & Ord. for appearance & exam (JUDGMENT DEBTOR: PAUL WOJDAK SET ON 04/15/16 ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2016
  • Appl. & Ord. for appearance & exam (JUDGMENT DEBTOR: PAUL WOJDAK ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2015
  • Notice of Entry of Judgment Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2015
  • Default Judgment Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2015
  • Req for Entry of Court's Judgment (PROCESSED/SUBMITTED ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2015
  • Declaration (OF ARMEN VARTIAN IN SUPPORT OF PLTFS' REQUEST FOR DEFAULT J JUDGMENT ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2015
  • Declaration (OF FRANCES FRIDELL IN SUPPORT OF APPL FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT UNDER CCP SECTION 585(d) ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2015
  • Notice (OF O.S.C. ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2015
  • Notice (OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
14 More Docket Entries
  • 05/05/2015
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2015
  • Request for Entry of Default Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2015
  • Default Entered Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2015
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2015
  • Proof of Service Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2015
  • Answer (OF DEFENDANT PAUL WOJDAK ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2015
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2015
  • Summons Filed Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

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.4th 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.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.)