Pittleman, et al. v. Spina Organics, LLC, et al.

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 415) September 8, 2026 DEPARTMENT 415 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Judge Rolf M. Treu, Department 415 HEARING DATE: September 8, 2026 TRIAL DATE: Trial complete CASE: Pittleman, et al. v. Spina Organics, LLC, et al. CASE NO.: 22STCV04376 MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT MOVING PARTY/PARTIES: Plaintiffs and Judgment Creditors Ellen Pittleman and Hybrid Entertainment, Inc. RESPONDING PARTY/PARTIES: None PROOF OF SERVICE: · Correct Address: Yes. · Served electronically on March 20, 2026 for a hearing date of September 8, 2026.

CASE HISTORY: · February 3, 2022: Complaint filed. · November 19, 2024: Court trial commenced. · March 3, 2025: Court trial completed. · May 29, 2025: Judgment entered in favor of Plaintiffs in the amount of $251,235.21.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiffs and Judgment Creditors Ellen Pittleman ("Pittleman") and Hybrid Entertainment, Inc. (collectively, "Plaintiffs") prevailed at trial against Defendants and Judgment Debtors Spina Organics, LLC and Mauro Spina ("Spina," collectively, "Defendant").

Plaintiffs filed and served a supplemental declaration in support of the motion on August 18, 2026 by email. That is not sufficient notice. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1005, subd. (b).) Accordingly, the Court disregards the supplemental declaration.

Plaintiffs seek to add Mauro Inc. as an additional judgment debtor because Plaintiffs contend Mauro Inc. is the alter ego of Spina. Defendants have not opposed the motion.

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs' motion to amend judgment is DENIED. Moving party to give notice.

DISCUSSION: Motion to amend judgment In their notice of motion, Plaintiffs cite Gopal v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 425 and Code of Civil Procedure section 187 as authority for this motion.

The Court cannot grant relief based on authority other than that cited in the notice of motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1010; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110, subd. (a); People v. American Sur. Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 719, 726.)

In Gopal v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 425, the Court explained that if joint enterprise or alter ego liability applies when persons use a corporate form to perpetrate fraud, circumvent a statute, or accomplish some other wrongful or inequitable purpose. Under these circumstances, the Court may then disregard the corporate entity and treat the corporation's acts as if they were done by the persons controlling the corporation. (Gopal v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 425, 431.)

Gopal v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 425 is not authority for post-judgment amendment. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 187, the Court may amend a judgment to add an additional judgment debtor who is the alter ego of the original judgment debtor. (See Angel Lynn Realty, Inc. v. George (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 655, 659-660.)

However, as Plaintiffs acknowledge, Spina is a party to this litigation. As such, what Plaintiffs seek is reverse veil piercing to hold Mauro Inc. liable for the judgment against Spina. The Court may use reverse veil piercing to add a nonparty limited liability company to satisfy the debts of an individual with the assets of the limited liability company of which the individual is an insider. (Curci Investments, LLC v. Baldwin (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 214, 222.)

However, California law does not permit reverse piercing of the corporate veil. (Postal Instant Press v. Kaswa Corp. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520-1521.) As such, Plaintiffs must proceed via normal judgment collection procedures.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion to amend judgment is DENIED. Moving party to give notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 8, 2026 ___________________________________ Rolf M. Treu Judge of the Superior Court