CIV458580 ADVANCE RESTAURANT FINANCE, LLC VS. PLAIN WRAPPER, INC., ET AL.

ADVANCE RESTAURANTFINANCE, LLC. ANGELA A. VELEN

PLAIN WRAPPER, INC.

MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGEMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion to Amend the Judgment brought by plaintiff/judgment creditor Advance Restaurant Finance, LLC and set for hearing on March 2, 2018, is denied.

Plaintiff obtained a default judgment in this case on Jul 17, 2007, and renewed that judgment on Jun 21, 2017. It appears that the original judgment was against the following defendants/judgment debtors:

· Plain Wrapper, Inc., a California Corporation dba Impeccable Taste Catering, and

· Diane Timmons aka Diane M. Hammond.

Plaintiff has provided evidence to show a change of name/entity—i.e. that judgment debtor Plain Wrapper, Inc. has suspended its corporate status and its business dealings have been transferred to a new entity using the following name:

· ITC Enterprises, Inc., Inc. a California Corporation dba
Impeccable Taste Catering fka
Plaint Wrapper Inc., a California Corporation dba
Impeccable Taste Catering

The new entity shares the same address and lists the same Diane Timmons as one of its officers.

Judgment creditor previously brought a motion to amend the judgment in October 2017 seeking the same relief as is sought in the present motion. That prior motion was denied for lack of notice to: (1) the judgment debtors, or (2) the proposed additional judgment debtor. As with the previous October 2017 motion, there is no proof of service on file for the instant motion. The matter must therefore be denied for lack of notice.

There is, additionally, a larger problem with the request being made. While a court may “use ‘all the means necessary’ to carry its jurisdiction into effect…” Ahart, Cal. Prac. Guid: Enforcing Judgment & Debts (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 6:1565, citing C.C.P. § 187), the practice guide also indicates that:

Exception—default judgment: But because of due process concerns, a default judgment is not subject to such an amendment.

Ahart, Cal. Prac. Guid: Enforcing Judgment & Debts (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 6:1567, citing Motores de Mexicali, S.A. v. Super.Ct. (1958) 51 Cal.2d 172, 175-176, also citing Wolf Metals Inc. v. Rand Pacific Sales, Inc. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 698, 703-704, 708-709, also citing NEC Electronics, Inc. v. Hurt (1989) 2908 Cal.App.3d 72, 779. Here, the judgment that was obtained was a default judgment, so it is not clear that the amendment process the judgment creditor seeks to invoke is permissible here.