Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/01/2019 at 00:13:02 (UTC).

MARIO MARTINEZ-NUNEZ VS TWO BRUDDAHS INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/22/2016 MARIO MARTINEZ-NUNEZ filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against TWO BRUDDAHS INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4788

  • Filing Date:

    12/22/2016

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MARTINEZ-NUNEZ MARIO

Defendants and Respondents

CHANG WILSON

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

TWO BRUDDAHS INC.

SHAKAS

TWO BRUDDAHS INC. DBA SHAKAS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

HATANIAN FARZIN

BOKHOUR MEHRDAD

HATANIAN FARZIN ESQ.

BOKHOUR MEHRDAD ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

YEE DEREK S. ESQ.

CASTORINA BRYAN ESQ.

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF DATES OF HEARINGS ON PLAINTIFF MARIO MARTINEZ-NUNEZ'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TWO BRUDDAHS, INC. TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY AND REQUEST

1/12/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF DATES OF HEARINGS ON PLAINTIFF MARIO MARTINEZ-NUNEZ'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TWO BRUDDAHS, INC. TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY AND REQUEST

Minute Order

2/1/2018: Minute Order

RULING

2/5/2018: RULING

PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DAMAGES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER STRIKING THE ANSWER OF AND RENDERING A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT TWO BRUDDAHS INC., OR, IN THE ALTER

3/19/2018: PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DAMAGES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER STRIKING THE ANSWER OF AND RENDERING A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT TWO BRUDDAHS INC., OR, IN THE ALTER

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION REQUESTING CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE AND ETC.

3/21/2018: ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION REQUESTING CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE AND ETC.

Minute Order

3/21/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

10/17/2018: Minute Order

Abstract of Judgment?Civil and Small Claims

4/11/2019: Abstract of Judgment?Civil and Small Claims

SUMMONS

12/22/2016: SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/12/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/12/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

10/12/2017: DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

10/12/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Minute Order

11/6/2017: Minute Order

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY?S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL?CIVIL

11/6/2017: ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY?S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL?CIVIL

RULING

11/6/2017: RULING

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF REQUESTS AND RESPONSES IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT TWO BRUDDAHS INC TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF MARIO MARTINEZNUNEZ'S FIRST SE

11/13/2017: SEPARATE STATEMENT OF REQUESTS AND RESPONSES IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT TWO BRUDDAHS INC TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF MARIO MARTINEZNUNEZ'S FIRST SE

47 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/23/2019
  • Notice of Hearing on Claim of Exemption or in lieu of Third-Party Claim; Filed by Mario Martinez-Nunez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Notice of Opposition to Claim of Exemption; Filed by Mario Martinez-Nunez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Filed by Mario Martinez-Nunez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • Writ of Execution ((Los Angeles)); Filed by Mario Martinez-Nunez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest; Filed by Mario Martinez-Nunez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • Association of Attorney; Filed by Mario Martinez-Nunez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; (OSC RE Dismissal) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2018
  • Notice of Entry of Judgment / Dismissal / Other Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2018
  • Judgment (- Stipulated Judgment - Before Trial - 11/05/2018 entered for Plaintiff Mario Martinez-Nunez, an individual against Defendant Wilson Chang, an individual; Defendant Two Bruddahs Inc., a California corporation DBA Shakas.); Filed by Mario Martinez-Nunez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2018
  • Notice of Ruling (PLAINTIFF'S RE: MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RECOVER ATTORNEYS' FEES); Filed by Mario Martinez-Nunez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
148 More Docket Entries
  • 01/13/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Mario Martinez-Nunez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Mario Martinez-Nunez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC644788    Hearing Date: October 06, 2020    Dept: 48

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Mario Martinez-Nunez (“Plaintiff”) was employed by Shakas until June 28, 2016. On December 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants Two Bruddahs, Inc. dba Shakas (“Two Bruddahs”) and Wilson Chang. Plaintiff worked at a Shakas location at 101 W. Main Street, Alhambra, California, but he received pay stubs and W-2 forms from a Shakas at 2300 S. Garfield Avenue in Monterey Park, California. (Motion at p. 3 & Exs. A-B.) Two Bruddahs’ discovery responses also referred to a location in 2300 S. Garfield Avenue in Monterey Park, California as of August 2016. (Motion at pp. 4-5 & Exs. E-F.)

On November 5, 2018, following a settlement agreement, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants. When Plaintiff gave the sheriff a writ of execution, process was returned without service on April 17, 2019 because the business license for 2300 S. Garfield Avenue, Unit C, was issued to “Shakas (DBA), Hang Loose Inc.” (Motion at p. 4 & Ex. H.)

On September 3, 2020, Plaintiff moved to amend the judgment to add Hang Loose, Inc. dba Shakas as an additional judgment debtor and to amend Wilson Chang’s name to Wilson Chang AKA Fun Soon Chang.

“Section 187 of the Code of Civil Procedure grants to every court the power to use all means to carry its jurisdiction into effect, even if those means are not set out in the code. [Citation.] Under section 187, the court has the authority to amend a judgment to add additional judgment debtors.” (NEC Electronics Inc. v. Hurt (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 772, 778, footnote omitted.) Additionally, “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff contends that Hang Loose, Inc. should be added to the judgment as an alter ego of Two Bruddahs and Wilson Chang. (Motion at pp. 6-7.) To add additional judgment debtors on an alter ego theory, a party “must show that (1) the parties to be added as judgment debtors had control of¿the underlying litigation and were virtually represented in that proceeding; (2) there is such a unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the entity and the owners no longer exist; and (3) an inequitable result will follow if the acts are treated as those of the entity alone.” (Relentless Air Racing, LLC v. Airborne Turbine Ltd. Partnership (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 811, 815-816.) “‘The decision to grant an amendment in such circumstances lies in the sound discretion of the trial court.’” (Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486, 508, quoting Carr v. Barnabey's Hotel Corp. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 14, 20.)

Plaintiff contends that Two Bruddahs and Hang Loose, Inc. are the same or successor companies because Wilson Chang is the sole director, CEO, CFO, and secretary of both companies. Plaintiff also notes that the two businesses share the same mailing address, agent for service of process, and type of fast food business. This evidence is insufficient to show that Hang Loose, Inc. had control of the litigation and was virtually represented in it. Plaintiff has not shown unity of interest and ownership, as Plaintiff’s evidence shows that Wilson Chang is the sole director, CEO, CFO, and secretary of Two Bruddhas, and Fun S. Chang is the sole director, CEO, CFO, and secretary of Hang Loose, Inc. Under these circumstances, the Court cannot find that Hang Loose, Inc. is the alter ego of Two Bruddahs.

Alternatively, Plaintiff suggests that Hang Loose, Inc. is a successor judgment debtor that should be liable for the judgment against Two Bruddahs. (Motion at pp. 8-9.) When a corporation sells or transfers its assets to another corporation, the successor corporation is liable for the debts and liabilities only when the purchaser expressly or impliedly agrees, the transaction amounts to a consolidation or merger of the two corporations, the purchasing corporation is merely a continuation of the selling corporation, or the transaction is fraudulent to escape liability for debts. (McClellan v. Northridge Park Townhome Owners Ass'n, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 746, 753.) Plaintiff provides no additional evidence in support of this theory.

Plaintiff also contends that he “recently discovered that defendant Wilson Chang’s true name is Fun Soon Chang.” (Motion at p. 9.) Although not cited in the motion, Plaintiff provides two Statements of Information filed with the Secretary of State. As on February 28, 2019, Wilson Chang was the president and director of Two Bruddahs at 101 W. Main Street, Alhambra, California. (Motion, Ex. I.) As of October 23, 2018, Fun S. Chang was the president and director of Hang Loose, Inc. at 101 W. Main Street #C, Alhambra, California. (Motion, Ex. J.) In opposition, Wilson Chang declares that his “real name” is Wilson Chang, and he has never used the name Fun Soon Chang. (Chang Decl. ¶ 3.) Although Wilson Change and Fun Soon Chang each had a business at the same address, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to amend the judgment to name Fun Soon Chang as a judgment debtor or alternative name of Wilson Chang.

Accordingly, the motion to amend judgment is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where TWO BRUDDAHS INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HATANINA FARZIN ESQ.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BOKHOUR MEHRDAD