TRACY MERIVETH VELASQUEZ BRENES VS. NATIONAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE, A CORPORATION ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion and Discovery Calendar for Tuesday, August 11, 2026, Line 29, PLAINTIFF TRACY VELASQUEZ BRENES's Motion To Amend Judgment To Add Shaquib Shaikh And Mohamed Shejad Lakdawala As Judgment Debtors.

Plaintiff Tracy Meriveth Velasquez Brenes's unopposed motion to amend the judgment to add Shaquib Shaikh and Mohamed Lakdawala as judgment debtors is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff presents insufficient evidence of a unity of ownership and interest, among other factors.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 187, "[t]he trial court is authorized to amend a judgment to add judgment debtors. [Citation.] The judgment may be amended to add additional judgment debtors on the ground that a person or entity is the alter ego of the original judgment debtor. [Citation.] ... In order to prevail in a motion to add judgment debtors, [the judgment creditor] 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 court may "add a judgment debtor who is found to be an alter ego of a corporate defendant." (Misik v. D'Arco (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1065, 1069.) "Amendment of a judgment to add an alter ego is a proper procedure where it can be shown that the alter ego of the corporate entity had control of the litigation and was virtually represented in the lawsuit." (Id., at p. 1075.)

Plaintiff's evidence consists of an attorney declaration that presents no competent proof that either of the putative alter egos owns the judgment debtor or that there is a unity of interest and ownership between them.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. (=301/CVA) | |