Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/01/2016 at 02:05:33 (UTC).

JACK MURRAY ET AL VS FRANK LYONS ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/08/2014 JACK MURRAY filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against FRANK LYONS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RICHARD E. RICO and HELEN I. BENDIX. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6908

  • Filing Date:

    09/08/2014

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RICHARD E. RICO

HELEN I. BENDIX

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

FIGLER SAM

MURRAY JACK

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

BLACK BARBARA

BROCKLEBANK JOHN JAY

CHAPMAN JEFFREY

LYONS FRANK

SOUTH VALLEY ANIMAL CLINIC PC

ANDERSON TARI

Defendants and Respondents

BROCKLEBANK JOHN JAY

CHAPMAN JEFFREY

Cross Defendants

BEEMAN JOHN

HOYT SPORT FIT

SOUTH VALLEY ANIMAL CLINIC PC

ZSEBIK CHARLES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

SNIPPER WAINER & MARKOFF

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

LICHT & LICHT A PC

EQUINE LEGAL SOLUTIONS PC

LAW OFFICE OF MCCARTHY & BEAVERS

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

EQUINE LEGAL SOLUTIONS PC

LAW OFFICE OF MCCARTHY & BEAVERS

Cross Defendant Attorney

JULANDER BROWN & BOLLARD

 

Court Documents

MINUTE ORDER AND CLERK?S NOTICE OF RULING AND/OR APPEALABLE ORDER

9/8/2014: MINUTE ORDER AND CLERK?S NOTICE OF RULING AND/OR APPEALABLE ORDER

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9/8/2014: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

SUMMONS ON SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

9/8/2014: SUMMONS ON SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

DECLARATION OF MAILING

9/8/2014: DECLARATION OF MAILING

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9/8/2014: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9/8/2014: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

ANSWER TO DEFENDANT BLACK'S VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

9/8/2014: ANSWER TO DEFENDANT BLACK'S VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9/8/2014: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

9/8/2014: SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

CROSS-COMPLAINANT BLACK?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOIION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS ANDERSON?S AND HOYT SPORT FIT?S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINANT BLACK?S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

9/8/2014: CROSS-COMPLAINANT BLACK?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOIION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CROSS-DEFENDANTS ANDERSON?S AND HOYT SPORT FIT?S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINANT BLACK?S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT

MINUTE ORDER AND CLERK?S NOTICE OF RULING AND/OR APPEALABLE ORDER

9/8/2014: MINUTE ORDER AND CLERK?S NOTICE OF RULING AND/OR APPEALABLE ORDER

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9/8/2014: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

PROOF OF SERVICE (CIVIL)

9/8/2014: PROOF OF SERVICE (CIVIL)

Unknown

9/8/2014: Unknown

DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT BLACK'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR IN PERSON AT MEDIATION; ETC.

4/30/2015: DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT BLACK'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER COMPELLING ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR IN PERSON AT MEDIATION; ETC.

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT/COURT JUDGMENT

2/4/2016: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT/COURT JUDGMENT

CROSS-COMPLAINT BLACK'S OBJECTION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT BROCKLEBANK'S REPLY BRIEF RE: MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

7/31/2017: CROSS-COMPLAINT BLACK'S OBJECTION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT BROCKLEBANK'S REPLY BRIEF RE: MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO CLAIM OF EXEMPTION (ENFOCEMENT OF JUDGMENT)

8/2/2017: NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO CLAIM OF EXEMPTION (ENFOCEMENT OF JUDGMENT)

270 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/03/2016
  • Partial Dismissal (with Prejudice) (COMPLAINT AS TO DEFENDANT BARBARA BLACK ONLY ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2016
  • Partial Dismissal (with Prejudice) (AS TO DOES 1 TO 20 ONLY ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2016
  • Notice of Ruling (FOLLOWING FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE ) Filed by Atty for Deft and Cross-Complnt

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2016
  • Partial Dismissal (with Prejudice) (CROSS-COMPLAINT FILED BY BARBARA BLACK AST JACK MURRAY AND SAMUEL FIGLER ONLY ) Filed by Attorney for Cross-Complainant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2016
  • Request to Enter Default (IS REJECTED AS FRANK, JOHN, TARI #13. FILED THE SECOND AMENDED COOMPLAINT NEED A COURT ORDER 28 AS CHAPMAN #13..14.28. ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2015
  • Notice (OF MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONF. ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2015
  • Stipulation (STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR DEFENDANT BARBARA BLACK'S PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF FINANCIAL RECORDS AT TRIAL ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2015
  • Miscellaneous-Other (CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ) Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2015
  • Objection (TO NOTICE TO APPEAR ) Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2015
  • Notice of Ruling Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
57 More Docket Entries
  • 09/08/2014
  • General Denial Filed by Attorney for Defendant & X-Deft

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2014
  • Substitution of Attorney (FOR TARILYNNE ANDERSON IN PRO PER ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2014
  • Substitution of Attorney (ATTORNEY FOR RECORD NOT ATTORNEY WAS NAMED FOR HOYT SPORT FIT ) Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2014
  • General Denial Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2014
  • Answer to First Amended Cross-Comp (OF TARILYNNE ANDERSON AND HOYT SPORT FIT ) Filed by Attorney for X-Deft/X-Comp

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2014
  • Notice of Incoming Case Transfer Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2014
  • Summons Filed Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2014
  • Proof of Service Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2014
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2014
  • Miscellaneous-Other (CIVIL DEPOSIT AS TO JURY FEES BYU COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT SOUTH VALLEY LARGE ANIMAL CLINIC ) Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC556908    Hearing Date: September 09, 2020    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

JACK MURRAY, et al.

vs.

FRANK LYONS, et al.

Case No.: BC556908

Hearing Date: September 9, 2020

Black’s motion to amend the entered default judgment is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part. The motion is granted as to its request to amend the judgment against Tarilynne Anderson to reflect additional aliases, and as to the request to amend the judgment to reflect that Hoyt Sport Fit as an unincorporated entity. The motion is denied in all other respects.

On January 3, 2017, the Honorable Judge Richard Rico entered default judgment in favor of Barbara Black against:

Cross-Defendants Tarilynne Anderson, Hoyt Sport Fit, John Jay Brocklebank and Frank Lyons, joint and severally, for:

(1) damages totaling $175,466.86, pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 19525, subdivision (b)(1); and

(2) costs totaling $11,970.73, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 1032(b).

Defendant John Jay Brocklebank:

(1) Attorneys’ fees totaling $2,644.67, pursuant to Civil Code section 1692 and Los Angeles Superior Court Rule 214(a)

(2) Attorneys’ fees in the amount of $80,276.75, pursuant to Civil Code section 1692.

Barbara Black (Black) moves to amend the default judgment order to add judgment debtors.

Legal Standard

CCP section 187 provides:

When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; ¿and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this code.

Under section 187, the trial court is authorized with the authority to amend a judgment to add additional judgment debtors. (Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486, 508.) “As a general rule, ‘a court may amend its judgment at any time so that the judgment will properly designate the real defendants.’.... Judgments may be amended to add additional judgment debtors on the ground that a person or entity is the alter ego of the original judgment debtor.... ‘Amendment of a judgment to add an alter ego “is an equitable procedure based on the theory that the court is not amending the judgment to add a new defendant but is merely inserting the correct name of the real defendant.... ‘Such a procedure is an appropriate and complete method by which to bind new ... defendants where it can be demonstrated that in their capacity as alter ego of the corporation they in fact had control of the previous litigation, and thus were virtually represented in the lawsuit.’ ...” ...' ” (Ibid.)

Procedural Defect

The Court notes Defendants’ counsels declaration that he was not served with any notices for the instant motion. (Fisco Decl., ¶ 1.) Because Defendants were able to prepare and submit an opposition in time to be considered by this Court, the Court will still reach the merits of the motion. However, the Court orders Plaintiff to comply with all procedural requirements of service for all future motions.

Discussion

Black moves to amend the judgment to include additional judgment debtors.

1. Amendment – Debtor Anderson

Black moves to amend the judgment to include the following since-discovered aliases for Debtor Anderson: (1) Tarilynne Hoyt Brocklebank; (2) Tarilynne Brocklebank; (3) Tari Brocklebank; (4) Tari H. Brocklebank; (5) Tari Anderson; (6) Tari H. Anderson; (7) Tarilyn Anderson, Tarilynne Hoyt; and (8) Tari Hoyt. In particular, Black moves to amend the judgment to reflect Debtor Anderson’s new last name, given her recent marriage to Debtor Brocklebank.

The Court is satisfied with the submitted evidence, i.e., screenshots reflecting Debtor Anderson’s updated name. Black’s request to amend the judgment to include the aforementioned aliases is granted.

2. Amendment – Debtor Hoyt Sport Fit

Black moves to amend the judgment to specify that Hoyt Sport Fit is an unincorporated entity. A writ of execution for service must specify the entity type. (CCP § 699. 510.) Black’s counsel submitted a declaration stating that Hoyt Sport Fit is an unincorporated entity based on information and belief—searches of the Utah Secretary of Sate’s and California Secretary of State’s Business Databases returned no listing of Debtor Hoyt Sport Fit. (McCart Decl., ¶ 9.)

In opposition, Defendants argue that Hoyt Sport Fit is in fact a dissolved LLC (“The 2014 deposition transcript shows that the deponent testified to Hoyt Sport Fit being an LLC which was dissolved for failure to register.” (Opp., 6: 12-14).

Based on the supplemental briefings, the Court is persuaded that Hoyt sport Fit is an inactive unincorporated entity. As such, the Court finds that sufficient evidence has been submitted to establish that Debtor Hoyt Sport Fit is an unincorporated entity/association.

3. Amendment – Debtor Brocklebank

Black moves to amend the judgment to include the following alter egos through which Debtor Brocklebank runs his business: (1) Brocklebank Training and Sales, an unincorporated entity; (2) Thoroughbred Investment Possibilities, LLC; (3) Thoroughbred Investment Possibilities, an unincorporated entity; (4) BC3 Thoroughbreds, LLC; (4) BC3 Thoroughbreds, an unincorporated entity; (5) Galley Garms, an unincorporated entity, (6) Brocklebank Racing Stables, LLC; (7) Brocklebank Racing Stables, an unincorporated entity; (8) J.B.H.M Agent, LLC; (9) J.B.H.M Agent, an unincorporated entity; (10) Juvenile Prep, LLC; and (11) Juvenile Prep, an unincorporated entity.

“There is no litmus test to determine when the corporate veil will be pierced; rather the result will depend on the circumstances of each particular case. There are, nevertheless, two general requirements: ‘(1) that there be such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist and (2) that, if the acts are treated as those of the corporation alone, an inequitable result will follow.’ ... And ‘only a difference in wording is used in stating the same concept where the entity sought to be held liable is another corporation instead of an individual.’” (Greenspan, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th 986)

Black’s submitted supplemental evidence remains insufficient to show that these additional entities are alter-egos of John Jay Brocklebank. At most, the submitted evidence establishes that entities are registered in the provided names, and that John Jay Brocklebank serves as the registered agent for some of these entities. This evidence falls short of establishing a unity of interest and ownership such that there is no separation between the corporate entity and Brocklebank, or that an inequitable result would occur if these additional entities are not added to the entered judgment. (See McCart Decl., Exh. 4; Greenspan, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p. 986.)

Accordingly, Black’s motion is denied as to the request to amend the judgment against Debtor Brocklebank to include additional alter egos.

It is so ordered.

Dated: September , 2020

Hon. Jon R. Takasugi

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.

Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances. Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk. The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.

Case Number: BC556908    Hearing Date: June 29, 2020    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

JACK MURRAY, et al.

vs.

FRANK LYONS, et al.

Case No.: BC556908

Hearing Date: June 29, 2020

Black’s motion to amend the entered default judgment is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part. The motion is granted as to its request to amend the judgment against Tarilynne Anderson to reflect additional aliases. The motion is denied in all other respects.

On January 3, 2017, the Honorable Judge Richard Rico entered default judgment in favor of Barbara Black against:

Cross-Defendants Tarilynne Anderson, Hoyt Sport Fit, John Jay Brocklebank and Frank Lyons, joint and severally, for:

(1) damages totaling $175,466.86, pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 19525, subdivision (b)(1); and

(2) costs totaling $11,970.73, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 1032(b).

Defendant John Jay Brocklebank:

(1) Attorneys’ fees totaling $2,644.67, pursuant to Civil Code section 1692 and Los Angeles Superior Court Rule 214(a)

(2) Attorneys’ fees in the amount of $80,276.75, pursuant to Civil Code section 1692.

Barbara Black (Black) now moves to amend the default judgment order to add judgment debtors.

Legal Standard

CCP section 187 provides:

When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given;¿and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this code.

Under section 187, the trial court is authorized with the authority to amend a judgment to add additional judgment debtors. (Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486, 508.) “As a general rule, ‘a court may amend its judgment at any time so that the judgment will properly designate the real defendants.’.... Judgments may be amended to add additional judgment debtors on the ground that a person or entity is the alter ego of the original judgment debtor.... ‘Amendment of a judgment to add an alter ego “is an equitable procedure based on the theory that the court is not amending the judgment to add a new defendant but is merely inserting the correct name of the real defendant.... ‘Such a procedure is an appropriate and complete method by which to bind new ... defendants where it can be demonstrated that in their capacity as alter ego of the corporation they in fact had control of the previous litigation, and thus were virtually represented in the lawsuit.’ ...” ...' ” (Ibid.)

Discussion

Black moves to amend the judgment to include additional judgment debtors.

1. Amendment – Debtor Anderson

Black moves to amend the judgment to include the following since-discovered aliases for Debtor Anderson: (1) Tarilynne Hoyt Brocklebank; (2) Tarilynne Brocklebank; (3) Tari Brocklebank; (4) Tari H. Brocklebank; (5) Tari Anderson; (6) Tari H. Anderson; (7) Tarilyn Anderson, Tarilynne Hot; and (8) Tari Hoyt. In particular, Black moves to amend the judgment to reflect Debtor Anderson’s new last name, given her recent marriage to Debtor Brocklebank.

The Court is satisfied with the submitted evidence, i.e., screenshots reflecting Debtor Anderson’s updated name. Black’s request to amend the judgment to include the aforementioned aliases is granted.

2. Amendment – Debtor Hoyt Sport Fit

Black moves to amend the judgment to specify that Hoyt Sport Fit is an unincorporated entity. A writ of execution for service must specify the entity type. (CCP § 699. 510.) Black’s counsel submitted a declaration stating that Hoyt Sport Fit is an unincorporated entity based on information and belief—searches of the Utah Secretary of Sate’s and California Secretary of State’s Business Databases returned no listing of Debtor Hoyt Sport Fit. (McCart Decl., ¶ 9.)

Cousel’s assertion, based solely on information and belief, is insufficient evidence to establish tat Debtor Hoyt Sport Fit is an unincorporated entity.

3. Amendment – Debtor Brocklebank

Black moves to amend the judgment to include the following alter egos through which Debtor Brocklebank runs his business: (1) Brocklebank Training and Sales, an unincorporated entity; (2) Thoroughbred Investment Possibilities, LLC; (3) Thoroughbred Investment Possibilities, an unincorporated entity; (4) BC3 Thoroughbreds, LLC; (4) BC3 Thoroughbreds, an unincorporated entity; (5) Galley Garms, an unincorporated entity, (6) Brocklebank Racing Stacles, LLC; (7) Brocklebank Racing Stables, an unincorporated entity; (8) J.B.H.M Agent, LLC; (9) J.B.H.M Agent, an unincorporated entity; (10) Juvenile Prep, LLC; and (11) Juvenile Prep, an unincorporated entity.

“There is no litmus test to determine when the corporate veil will be pierced; rather the result will depend on the circumstances of each particular case. There are, nevertheless, two general requirements: ‘(1) that there be such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist and (2) that, if the acts are treated as those of the corporation alone, an inequitable result will follow.’ ... And ‘only a difference in wording is used in stating the same concept where the entity sought to be held liable is another corporation instead of an individual.’” (Greenspan, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th 986)

Black’s submitted evidence is insufficient to show that these additional entities are mere alter-egos of John Jay Brocklebank. At most, the submitted evidence establishes that entities are registered in the provided names, and that John Jay Brocklebank serves as the registered agent for some of these entities. This evidence falls short of establishing a unity of interest and ownership such that there is no separation between the corporate entity and Brocklebank, or that an inequitable result would occur if these additional entities are not added to the entered judgment. (See McCart Decl., Exh. 4; Greenspan, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p. 986.)

Accordingly, Black’s motion is denied as to the request to amend the judgment against Debtor Brocklebank to include additional alter egos.

It is so ordered.

Dated: June 29, 2020

Hon. Jon R. Takasugi

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.

Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances. Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk. The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via CourtCall. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.