VILMA APARICIO VS GEORGINA MENDOZA ET AL
Case Summary
On 10/22/2009 VILMA APARICIO filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against GEORGINA MENDOZA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ROLF M. TREU. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Case Details
-
Case Number:
****4461
-
Filing Date:
10/22/2009
-
Case Status:
Disposed - Judgment Entered
-
Courthouse:
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
-
County, State:
Los Angeles, California
Judge Details
Presiding Judge
ROLF M. TREU
Party Details
Plaintiff
APARICIO VILMA
Defendants and Respondents
BOCK LAVERN F.
DE LA MADRID DANIEL
DOES 1 TO 10
MENDOZA GEORGINA
PACIFIC SHORE FINANCE
PACIFIC SHORE FINANCE INC.
PERLA COSTA REALTY
PERLA REALTY
Attorney/Law Firm Details
Plaintiff Attorneys
LUNA DAVID A.
SAUCEDO GILBERT
Court Documents
12/31/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
12/31/2019: Motion to Amend Judgment
1/22/2020: Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest
3/23/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING(S))
Docket Entries
- 12/07/2020
-
DocketApplication for and Renewal of Judgment; Filed by Vilma Aparicio (Plaintiff)
- 07/22/2020
-
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Hearing on Motion for Order (AMENDING JUDGMENT TO ADD NAME OF DANNIE MADRID AS JUDGMENT DEBTOR;) - Held - Motion Denied
- 07/22/2020
-
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Plaintiff Vilma Aparicio's Motion for Order Amendi...)); Filed by Clerk
- 04/10/2020
-
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Hearing on Motion for Order (AMENDING JUDGMENT TO ADD NAME OF DANNIE MADRID AS JUDGMENT DEBTOR;) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court
- 03/23/2020
-
Docketat 4:58 PM in Department 58; Court Order
- 03/23/2020
-
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re: Continuance of Hearing(s))); Filed by Clerk
- 03/23/2020
-
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re: Continuance of Hearing(s)) of 03/23/2020); Filed by Clerk
- 01/22/2020
-
DocketMemorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest; Filed by Vilma Aparicio (Plaintiff)
- 01/07/2020
-
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Hearing on Motion for Order (NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO ADD NAME)
- 12/31/2019
-
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Vilma Aparicio (Plaintiff)
- 01/06/2010
-
DocketMinute order entered: 2010-01-06 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk
- 10/29/2009
-
DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk
- 10/29/2009
-
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
- 10/29/2009
-
DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING
- 10/29/2009
-
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
- 10/22/2009
-
DocketComplaint; Filed by Vilma Aparicio (Plaintiff)
- 10/22/2009
-
DocketORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER
- 10/22/2009
-
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. FRAUD & DECEIT; ETC.
- 10/22/2009
-
DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Vilma Aparicio (Plaintiff)
- 10/22/2009
-
DocketSUMMONS
Tentative Rulings
Case Number: BC424461 Hearing Date: July 22, 2020 Dept: 58
Judge John P. Doyle
Department 58
Hearing Date: July 22, 2020
Case Name: Aparicio v. Mendoza, et al.
Case No.: BC424461
Matter: Motion to Amend Judgment to Add Alter Ego
Moving Party: Plaintiff Vilma Aparicio
Responding Party: Unopposed
Tentative Ruling: The Motion is denied without prejudice.
On January 5, 2011, the Court entered a judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against several Defendants, including Defendant Daniel De La Madrid.
Plaintiff now seeks to amend the judgment to add an alter ego of Daniel De La Madrid. (Code Civ. Proc. § 187.) Plaintiff contends Daniel De La Madrid has changed his identity to Dannie Madrid.
Plaintiff’s Motion lacks both legal and factual merit. As an initial matter, there is no third-party which Plaintiff seeks to add as an alter ego. Plaintiff seeks to simply modify the name of the same Defendant to reflect his true name or else to add an alias. Further, by definition, two individuals cannot be alter egos. For the alter ego doctrine to apply, a corporate entity must be involved.
The proper course here is to seek nunc pro tunc amendment. However, Plaintiff’s Motion is factually barren as to whether Defendant De La Madrid has actually changed his name or is using an alias. Without providing any foundation or further detail, counsel simply states, “My research indicates that the Defendant Daniel De La Madrid is the same person who now goes by the name of Dannie Madrid.” (Saucedo Decl. ¶ 2.)
Because there is no real evidence that De La Madrid has changed his name or that he uses “Dannie Madrid” as an alias, the Motion is denied without prejudice.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases