HEARING ON MOTION TO ADD DAMON BOWERS AS A JUDGMENT DEBTOR
FILED BY ANDREW CHEKENE, MELANIE CHEKENE
* TENTATIVE RULING: *
Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their judgment against DB Capital Investments, Inc. (“DBC”) is denied. The case management conference and the bankruptcy status review hearing, both set for September 22 at 8:30 a.m., are confirmed. The basis for this ruling is as follows. A. Bowers Is An Existing Co-Defendant
With No Alter Ego Allegations Against Him.
The cases cited by plaintiffs do not support the proposition that plaintiffs can amend a judgment against one defendant to add an existing co-defendant who would otherwise have a right to trial. (See, e.g., NEC Electronics Inc. v. Hurt (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 772, 775 [“[n]either Finelli nor Hurt, the sole shareholder and chief executive officer of Ph, was named as a party or served in his individual capacity”]; Jack Farenbaugh & Son v. Belmont Constr. (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1023, 1027 [“respondent brought a motion to ame
Hearing Date
September 10, 2021
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
HEARING ON MOTION TO ADD DAMON BOWERS AS A JUDGMENT DEBTOR
FILED BY ANDREW CHEKENE, MELANIE CHEKENE
* TENTATIVE RULING: *
Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their judgment against DB Capital Investments, Inc. (“DBC”) is denied. The case management conference and the bankruptcy status review hearing, both set for September 22 at 8:30 a.m., are confirmed. The basis for this ruling is as follows. A. Bowers Is An Existing Co-Defendant
With No Alter Ego Allegations Against Him.
The cases cited by plaintiffs do not support the proposition that plaintiffs can amend a judgment against one defendant to add an existing co-defendant who would otherwise have a right to trial. (See, e.g., NEC Electronics Inc. v. Hurt (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 772, 775 [“[n]either Finelli nor Hurt, the sole shareholder and chief executive officer of Ph, was named as a party or served in his individual capacity”]; Jack Farenbaugh & Son v. Belmont Constr. (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1023, 1027 [“respondent brought a motion to ame