Public Service Elect Ric & Gas Vs Baldwin Karl

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Friday, July 12, 2024, Line 14. DEFENDANT JASON JONES' Motion To Deem Facts Admitted. Continued to July 26, 2024, to be heard on the court's discovery calendar at 9:00 a.m. =(302/RCE)

24CV00043 TD Bank USA, NA v. Touch, KC EVENT: Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Matters Admitted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Matters Admitted is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order. 3-||4. 24CV00299 Armatis, Katrina v. Goldstein, Rachel Lynn EVENT: (1) Defendant AirBNB Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and For Stay of Proceedings Pending Disposition of this Motion and Arbitration (2) Case Management Conference Defendant Airbnb Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is GRANTED. This case is stayed in its entirety pending arbitration. A Case Management Conference is hereby scheduled for December 11, 2024 at 10:30am. 1 ||5. 24CV00970 In re: MacNeil, Kaci EVENT: Change of Name (minor) (Continued from 5/22/24) There is no proof of publication on file. Upon the filing of the proof of publication, the Court will sign the decree provided. 6-||7. 22CV02404 Guinn, Lisa v. Graham Solar Systems, Inc. et al. EVENT: (1) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (Defendant Nicholas Graham) (2) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (Defendant Graham Solar Systems Inc.) (Continued from 6/12/24) Both motions to be relieved as counsel are granted. The court will sign the proposed orders. The orders will become effective upon the filing of the proof of service indicating Defendants were served with the order. 2|Page 8-||10. 19CV01226 Randolph, Teresa v. Trustees of the California State University et al. EVENT: (1) Defendant Board of Trustees of the California State University’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions and for Sanctions; (2) Defendant Board of Trustees of the California State University’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and for Sanctions; (3) Defendant Board of Trustees of the California State University’s Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and for Sanctions Continued from 6/26/24 These discovery motions are unopposed. Defendants’ Motions are granted in their entirety to the extent Plaintiff’s verifications do not comply with the Code of Civil Procedure as they are not under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further code complaint verifications within 10 days of notice of this order. As to other issues, the Court rules as follows. Production of Documents Request No. 103 – As it appears Plaintiff has failed to follow through with her promise to produce documents, Plaintiff is ordered to produce responsive documents within 10 days of notice of this order. Request No. 105 – The objections are untimely and must be removed. As to the adequacy of the response, the response seems to indicate Plaintiff cannot comply, but the response includes the qualifier “nearly all” documents were destroyed. Thus, it is unclear whether Plaintiff has any responsive documents. Further response is required. Request No. 107 - The objections are untimely and must be removed. As to the adequacy of the response, the response seems to indicate Plaintiff cannot comply, but the response includes the qualifier “nearly all” documents were destroyed. Thus, it is unclear whether Plaintiff has any responsive documents. Further response is required. Special Interrogatories, Set Two Interrogatory No. 26 – Although Plaintiff’s alleged inconsistent statements might potentially be considered in other contexts, the Court finds the response to this question is sufficient for purposes of the discovery statutes. Interrogatory No. 27 – Unlike Interrogatory No. 26, this response is evasive considering it asks whether Plaintiff attempted to contact Ms McRae. A response of “unknown” to that request is 3|Page evasive. It is within her personal knowledge, and she either attempted to contact her, or she didn’t. Further response is required. Form Interrogatories Interrogatory No. 217.1 – To the extent Plaintiff seeks to respond by employing CCP section 2030.230 by referring to other documents, the Court finds the subject requests are not the type of requests necessitating a summary. Even if they were, simply making a general referral to deposition transcript is not a sufficiently specific response for purposes of section 2030.230. Special Interrogatories, Set Three Interrogatory No. 36 - Similar to interrogatory 217.1, general reference to deposition transcripts and documents produced is simply not specific enough. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further substantive responses as discussed within 10 days of notice of this order. Defendant is awarded sanctions in the amount of $ 2,950.00.

Case Number: 23STCP04480 Hearing Date: July 11, 2024 Dept: 51 Tentative Ruling Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51 HEARING DATE: July 11, 2024 CASE NAME: Ace Funding Source LLC v. Azizi Imports Inc. d/b/a Azizi Imports, et al. CASE NO .: 23STCP04480 MOTION TO AMEND SISTER STATE JUDGMENT DUE TO CLERICAL ERROR UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 473(d) MOVING PARTY : Plaintiff Ace Funding Source LLC RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of July 8, 2024 REQUESTED RELIEF: 1. An Order amending the sister state judgment entered against Azizi Imports Inc. d/b/a Azizi Imports; Flyby Auto Transport LLC d/b/a Flyby Auto Transport; Oversight, LLC d/b/a Oversight; Flyby Auto Transport LLC; and Jonathan Azizi. TENTATIVE RULING: 1. Motion to Amend Sister-State Judgment due to Clerical Error is GRANTED. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff Ace Funding Source LLC (Plaintiff) filed an Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment (Application) against Defendants Azizi Imports Inc. d/b/a Azizi Imports; Flyby Auto Transport LLC d/b/a Flyby Auto Transport; Overight, LLC d/b/a Oversight; and Jonathan Azizi (Defendants). On December 12, 2023, the Clerk entered judgment. On April 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed notice of motion to amend the Sister-State Judgment. On May 13, 2024, the court continued the hearing on Plaintiffs motion to amend. On June 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of points and authorities and a declaration in support of its motion to amend the Sister-State Judgment. LEGAL STANDARD: Courts have inherent powers to correct judgments by a nunc pro tunc order where there has been a clerical error by clerk or by the judge himself, or where some provision of, or omission from, order or judgment was due to inadvertence, or mistake of court. ( Lane v. Superior Court of Siskiyou County (1950) 98 Cal App 2d 165, 219; Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d).) This includes clerical errors when made by an attorney who drafts the judgment. ( See In re Marriage of Kaufman (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 147, 151.) However, while a trial court may correct clerical errors and misprisions in a judgment, it cannot amend a judgment once entered, if the error to be corrected is a judicial one, for instance if it embodies an intentional action of the court even though legally erroneous. ( Kamper v. Mark Hopkins, Inc. (1947) 78 Cal App 2d 885.) ANALYSIS : Plaintiff contends that Defendants Flyby Auto Transport LLC d/b/a Flyby Auto Transport, Oversight, LLC d/b/a Oversight, and Flyby Auto Transport LLC were not added to the courts docket due to a clerical error. Plaintiff further contends that these Defendants were listed in the Sister-State Judgment packet documents. Plaintiff seeks to have these Defendants added to the docket. Here, the court agrees there is a clerical error. The Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment entered on December 12, 2023 identify all Defendants. However, the courts docket only includes Defendants Azizi Imports Inc. d/b/a Azizi Imports and Jonathan Azizi. While Plaintiff does not seek revision of the documents themselves, Plaintiffs request is still proper because it is clearly a clerical error that the docket does not accurately reflect the entered Judgment. (Code Civ. Proc. § 183(3).) Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to amend. CONCLUSION: For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows: 1. Motion to Amend Sister-State Judgment due to Clerical Error is GRANTED. Moving party is to give notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 11, 2024 __________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra Judge of the Superior Court

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 201700491367CUOR: Sherwood Valley HOA vs New Mission 06/25/2024 in Department 21 Motion to Amend Judgment to Add Additional Judgment Debtors on Alter Ego Theory Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 187 The morning calendar in courtroom 21 will normally begin between 8:30 and 8:45 a.m. Please arrive at the courtroom no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is called. The Court allows appearances by CourtCall but is not equipped for Zoom. If appearing by CourtCall, call in no later than 8:15 a.m. If you intend to appear by CourtCall, you must make arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No exceptions will be made. With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Riley's secretary, Ms. Sedillos at 805-289-8705, stating that you submit on the tentative. You may also email the Court at: Courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not communicate to the Court that you submit on the tentative or you do not appear at the hearing, the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative. Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized. Tentative Ruling The Court will CONTINUE the hearing on Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Sherwood Valley Homeowners Association’s motion to amend the judgment in this action to add Amy Levan and Japanese Apple Blossom LLC as additional judgment debtors to July 11, 2024, to be heard after third party Amy Levan’s motion to quash service of the motion. Analysis On June 11, 2024, Amy Levan filed opposition papers to the Association’s motion to amend the judgment. On the same date, she filed a motion to quash service of the Association’s motion to amend the Judgment on Levan, on the ground that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Levan because the service of the Association’s motion on her was deficient. Levan’s motion to quash service is presently set for hearing on July 9, 2024. 201700491367CUOR: Sherwood Valley HOA vs New Mission Because Levan’s motion to quash raises a fundamental question as to whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over Levan for the purposes of ruling on the Association’s motion to add her as an additional judgment debtor, the Court will rule on the motion to quash prior to ruling on the Association’s motion. (See, e.g., In re Marriage of Obrecht (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1, 17 [noting “the California rule…that an objection to personal jurisdiction must be finally determined…before the defendant can litigate any defense on the merits.”].) Accordingly, the Court cannot and should not hear the Association’s motion to add additional judgment debtors prior to hearing Levan’s motion to quash.

CU23-05874 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Page 1 of 2 TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. Defendant’s answer admits the existence and amount of the indebtedness. (Answer, ¶ 10.) Defendant’s inability to pay is not a defense to the indebtedness. A borrower is legally obligated to repay the debt. (Ab Group v. Wertin (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1022, 1028.) And, a creditor has no duty to exercise reasonable forbearance in enforcing its legal remedies against a debtor. (Price v. Wells Fargo Bank (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 465, 479.) Page 2 of 2

Case Number: 23STCP00079 Hearing Date: July 15, 2024 Dept: 51 Tentative Ruling Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51 HEARING DATE: July 15, 2024 CASE NAME: Pearl Beta Funding, LLC v. Lonewolf Insurance Services, et al. CASE NO .: 23STCP00079 MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE JUDGMENT MOVING PARTY : Judgment Debtors Three Zero Four Zero Two Holding, LLC and Tatanisha Leer [1] RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Pearl Beta Funding, LLC REQUESTED RELIEF: 1. An Order setting aside the amended judgment. TENTATIVE RULING: 1. Motion for Order Setting Aside/Vacating Judgment is CONTINUED to September 3, 2024. The parties shall submit additional briefing consistent with the requirements of CCP § 1005(b). STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: On January 4, 2023, Plaintiff Pearl Beta Funding, LLC (Judgment Creditor) filed an Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment naming Judgment Debtors Lonewolf Insurance Services, Inc., El Dorado Hills Insurance Solutions Inc., Golden Foothill Insurance Services LLC, The Genesis LS Fund LLC, Life Shares LLC, KTL Holdings Inc., and Stefan Joseph Leer (Judgment Debtors). On January 12, 2023, Judgment on Sister-State Judgment was entered by the clerk. On July 14, 2023, Judgment Creditor filed an Application for Issuance of Writ of Execution, Possession or Sale for property located at 30402 Marbella Vista, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 owned by Judgment Debtor Stefan Joseph Leer. On July 14, 2023, Judgment Creditor obtained a Writ of Execution (Money Judgment) against all Judgment Debtors and filed a Memorandum of Costs after Judgment. On September 26, 2023, Judgment Creditor filed an Application and Order for Appearance and Examination of Judgment Debtor Stefan Joseph Leer. On September 27, 2023, Judgment Creditor filed an Application and Order for Appearance and Examination of Third Person Tatanish L. Leer which was granted. On January 17, 2024, Judgment Creditor filed a Return to Court Writ of Execution. On February 13, 2024, Judgment Creditor filed a instant Motion to Amend Judgment pursuant to CCP § 187 which the court GRANTED as to Three Zero Four Zero Two Holding, LLC and DENIED as to Tatanisha Leer. On March 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed notice of entry of the courts order on the Motion to Amend Judgment. On May 21, 2024, Judgment Debtor Three Zero Four Zero Two Holding, LLC and Non-Party Tatanisha Leer (Moving Parties) filed the instant Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment. On July 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. As of July 9, 2024, Moving Parties did not file a reply. LEGAL STANDARD: Set Aside CCP §¿473 The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect&¿ [The application]¿shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.¿ (CCP¿§¿473(b).) Courts must grant relief when the attorneys inexcusable neglect results in the dismissal. ( Ibid. ) Otherwise, relief under this section is discretionary. ( Ibid. ) Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d), provides that the Court may, on motion of either party after notice set aside any void judgment or order. Request for Judicial Notice The court grants Judgment Creditors request for judicial notice as to Exhibits A through J. (Evid. Code § 452(c), (h); See Kalnoki v. First American Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 23,37.) However, the court only takes judicial notice of the foregoing documents only as to the existence, content and authenticity of public records and other specified documents; it does not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters asserted in those documents. ( Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal. App. 5th 389, 400.)¿¿ ANALYSIS : Moving Parties contend the judgment should be set aside because the amount fails to credit amounts of the judgment already paid and the motion to amend the judgment was not properly served. Plaintiff argues Moving Parties have not demonstrated, or even suggested, prejudice. As a threshold matter, CCP §¿473 does not afford the relief Moving Parties seek. ( Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 844 [noting that a CCP § 473.5 motion is a procedural remedy to set aside a default or default judgment, not a sister state judgment.]) The more applicable statute is CCP § 1710.40 which provides, in pertinent part: ( a) A judgment entered pursuant to this chapter may be vacated on any ground which would be a defense to an action in this state on the sister state judgment, including the ground that the amount of interest accrued on the sister state judgment and included in the judgment entered pursuant to this chapter is incorrect. (b) Not later than 30 days after service of notice of entry of judgment pursuant to¿ Section 1710.30 , proof of which has been made in the manner provided by Article 5 (commencing with¿ Section 417.10 ) of Chapter 4 of Title 5 of Part 2, the judgment debtor, on written notice to the judgment creditor, may make a motion to vacate the judgment under this section. Service, not actual notice, triggers the 30-day limit for the judgment debtor to make a motion to vacate the judgment so long as the judgment debtor was effectively served with process in the sister state action. ( Conseco Marketing, LLC, supra, at p. 838.) However, service of the notice of entry of judgment must be done in the manner provided for service of summons and shall . . . inform the judgment debtor that the judgment debtor has 30 days within which to make a motion to vacate the judgment. ( Ibid. ) Here, Plaintiff did not adequately serve notice of entry of the amended judgment on the Wyoming LLC. [2] First, Plaintiff effected service via U.S. Mail only. (Notice of Entry of Amended Judgment, Proof of Service.) This is not one of the proscribed methods for service of summons. (CCP § 415.10(a) [personal delivery], § 415.20 [substitute service], or § 415.30 (a) [service by mail with a notice and acknowledgment of receipt].) Second, the notice does not inform the judgment debtor that they have 30 days within which to make the instant motion. ( Conseco Marketing, LLC, supra, at p. 838.) Accordingly, the court CONTINUES the instant motion to allow the parties the opportunity to provide further briefing. CONCLUSION: For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows: 1. Motion for Order Setting Aside/Vacating Judgment is CONTINUED to September 3, 2024. The parties shall submit additional briefing consistent with the requirements of CCP § 1005(b). Moving party is to give notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 15, 2024 __________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra Judge of the Superior Court [1] Contrary to Moving Parties assertion, Tatanisha Leer is not a judgment debtor. (Order Granting in Part and Denying in Party Motion to Amend Sister-State Judgment.) [2] As such, that Moving Parties filed this motion 56-days after service of the notice of entry of judgment is inconsequential. It is also questionable whether Plaintiff properly served the remaining named Defendants. While they were personally served with the original judgment on February 24, 2023, the proof of service for the notice of amended judgment is also via U.S. Mail only. Conversely, the court also notes that Moving Parties proof of service for the instant motion may be defective, too, since it is not served on the remaining Defendants.

Case Number: 23CHCV00264 Hearing Date: July 11, 2024 Dept: F47 Dept. F47 Date: 7/11/24 Case #23CHCV00264 MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED Motion filed on 4/4/24. MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Rock Creek Capital, LLC RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Norma S. Carcamo NOTICE: ok RELIEF REQUESTED : An order deeming the truth of matters specified in Plaintiffs Request for Admissions served on Defendant Norma S. Carcamo. RULING : The motion is granted. SUMMARY OF ACTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY On 1/30/23, Plaintiff Rock Creek Capital, LLC (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendant Norma S. Carcamo (Defendant) for breach of contract. On 4/4/23, Defendant, representing herself, filed an answer to the complaint. On 2/2/24, Plaintiff served Defendant, by U.S. Mail, with Requests for Admissions, Set 1. (Aguirre Decl., Ex.1). Defendant failed to serve responses. (Aguirre Decl.). Therefore, on 4/4/24, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order deeming the truth of matters specified in Plaintiffs Request for Admissions served on Defendant. Defendant has not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion. ANALYSIS Due to Defendants failure to respond to the Requests for Admissions, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming the matters admitted. CCP 2033.280(b), (c). CONCLUSION The motion is granted.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 201700491367CUOR: Sherwood Valley HOA vs New Mission 07/09/2024 in Department 21 Motion to Quash Specially Appearing Non-Party Amy Levan's Notice of Motion and Motion to Quash Service of Motion to Amend Judgment to Add Judgment Debtor The morning calendar in courtroom 21 will normally begin between 8:30 and 8:45 a.m. Please arrive at the courtroom no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is called. The Court allows appearances by CourtCall but is not equipped for Zoom. If appearing by CourtCall, call in no later than 8:15 a.m. If you intend to appear by CourtCall, you must make arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No exceptions will be made. With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Riley's secretary, Ms. Sedillos at 805-289-8705, stating that you submit on the tentative. You may also email the Court at: Courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not communicate to the Court that you submit on the tentative or you do not appear at the hearing, the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative. Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized. Tentative Ruling GRANTS nonparty Amy LeVan’s motion to quash Plaintiff Sherwood Valley Homeowners Association’s service of its motion to amend judgment to add judgment debtors. Although the law regarding what type of service is required for Plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment is not entirely clear (compare Favila v. Pasquarella (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 934, 947, fn. 10, with Reliant Life Shares, LLC v. Cooper (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 14, 58), the Court concludes that for the purposes of Plaintiff’s motion to amend the more “suitable process…most conformable to the spirit of [the Code of Civil Procedure]” (see Code of Civil Procedure §187) is that Plaintiff be required to serve LeVan with its moving papers in the same manner as required for service of summons. As a result, the Court finds Plaintiff’s service of its motion to amend the judgment by mail on LeVan insufficient and quashes such service. 201700491367CUOR: Sherwood Valley HOA vs New Mission Based on the above, the Court continues the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment, presently set for July 11, 2024, to August 15, 2024, to give Plaintiff sufficient time to effect service of its moving papers on LeVan in the manner required for service of process at least 16 court days prior to the August 15, 2024 hearing, and to file and serve proof of such service with the Court. The motion to amend the judgment is already fully briefed, and no additional briefing is authorized at this time. Analysis The Association’s motion to amend the judgment to add additional judgment debtors is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §187. Section 187 provides that: “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.” Because a motion to amend a judgment to add alter egos is not a “proceeding …specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute,” the Court may employ “any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.” Stated differently, the procedural rules governing the Association’s motion to amend the judgment are not specified by statute, and therefore the Court must determine what procedural rules are appropriate (“most conformable to the spirit of this Code”) for such a proceeding. The Court notes that a motion to amend the judgment to add an alter ego as a judgment debtor is viewed by the courts as an equitable procedure pursuant to which the Court is not adding a new defendant, but merely inserting the correct name of the real defendant. (See Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 419.) However, LeVan persuasively argues that unless and until the Court adjudicates that LeVan is an alter ego of the judgment debtor, New Mission, LLC (“New Mission”), LeVan is legally a separate person from New Mission and therefore the Court needs to acquire jurisdiction over LeVan in an appropriate manner to rule on the merits of the alter ego allegations. There is appellate authority standing for the procedure that a motion to amend the judgment pursuant to §187 must be a noticed motion. (See, e.g., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Weinberg (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1, 9 [Stating that: “Code of Civil Procedure section 187 contemplates a noticed motion.”].) However, there appears to be a dearth of authority directly addressing the issue of how a nonparty alleged alter ego should be served with notice of such a motion and the moving papers. There is authority suggesting – without explicitly holding –that the Association’s moving papers in support of the motion should have been personally served on LeVan, because such service is in the spirit of the provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure regarding initiating a lawsuit against 201700491367CUOR: Sherwood Valley HOA vs New Mission a party. For example, the 2nd District Court of Appeal stated the following with respect to service of a motion to amend a judgment on the person allegedly the alter ego of the judgment debtor: “As discussed, the Estate personally served the motion to amend on Pasquarella, at the time no longer a party in the Get Flipped litigation, and not her counsel of record in the Moofly Productions litigation—a procedure that was entirely proper, although perhaps not a model of professional courtesy. (Cf. §§ 415.10 [requiring personal service of papers initiating a lawsuit], 684.020, subd. (a) [requiring postjudgment papers be served on postjudgment debtor, not debtor's counsel, absent a request on file with the court].) (Pasquarella was also served as the registered agent for judgment debtor Moofly Productions.)” (Favila v. Pasquarella (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 934, 947, fn. 10.) There is 2nd District Court of Appeal authority suggesting that service of a motion to amend judgment is affected by the presence or lack thereof of evidence regarding alter ego status. “As Ms. Cainong necessarily concedes, the service at issue here is not the service of a summons and complaint, and she offers no authority for her contention that the motion to amend the judgment was ‘akin’ to service of a summons and complaint. In the absence of any such authority, we see no reason to treat Cooper's motion to amend the judgment as subject to different procedural requirements than any other motion. Particularly is this so given the court's findings in phase one of the trial that the evidence established Michaels used the three trusts as extensions of himself.” (emphasis added) (Reliant Life Shares, LLC v. Cooper (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 14, 58 [“Reliant”].) Here, unlike in Reliant, the Association fails to submit any evidence that this Court made any findings at or prior to trial that any of the third parties the Association seeks to add to the judgment “used [New Mission] as extensions of [themselves].” The very limited case law on the issue does not provide a clear answer as to what kind of service of the present motion to amend the judgment is required with respect to LeVan. The Court adopts the more conservative approach approved of in Favila v. Pasquarella, and requires the Association to serve LeVan personally with the moving papers, as this is more likely to avoid potential jurisdictional issues with any amended judgment against LeVan. The Court will require the Association to serve LeVan with its moving papers in the same manner as required for service of process. In her Reply Brief, LeVan argues that Court lacks the discretion to continue the hearing because it does not presently have jurisdiction over the controversy between the parties. The Court rejects LeVan’s argument because, inter alia, in her May 16, 2024 ex parte application LeVan previously requested an order continuing the hearing on the Association’s motion to amend the judgment, which request was granted in part, and therefore she will not be heard to argue that the Court lacks either the jurisdiction or power to continue the hearing. 201700491367CUOR: Sherwood Valley HOA vs New Mission The hearing on the Association’s motion to amend the judgment is presently set for July 11, 2024. The Court will continue the hearing on the motion for approximately five weeks to August 15, 2024, to give the Association sufficient time to effect service of its moving papers on LeVan in the manner required for service of process at least 16 court days prior to the August 15, 2024 hearing, and to file and serve proof of such service. The Court does not authorize any additional briefing on the motion for leave to amend, as the matter has already been fully briefed.