Hendrik Block v. Vartanian et al

Filing 61

ORDER GRANTING 60 Motion to Modify Judgment, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/2/2022. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HENDRIK BLOCK,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 1:16-cv-00650-JLT-SKO
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO MODIFY
JUDGMENT

v.
(Doc. 60)

14

HAGOP VARTANIAN dba
PUBLICAUCTION R US, et al.,

15
Defendant.
16
17

This matter resolved in 2017 by way of a Consent Decree between Hendrik Block and

18

several Defendants, including Amanda Florez. (Doc. 50.) The Consent Decree, which was

19

signed and approved by the previously assigned district judge, constituted a final judgment of the

20

Court in favor of Plaintiff. (See id.¶ 18.) In December 2017, Plaintiff was awarded attorney’s

21

fees in the amount of $25,492.50, paralegal fees in the amount of $3,782.00, and costs of suit in

22

the amount of $5,673.94, for a total of $34,948.44. (Doc. 55.) Thereafter, Plaintiff requested,

23

and was issued, an abstract of judgment listing Amanda Florez as a judgment debtor. (Doc. 57.)

24

Plaintiff has submitted publicly available, certified deed records that indicate judgment

25

debtor Amanda Florez now uses the name Amanda A. Vartanian and has conveyed property to

26

herself under the name Amanda A. Vartanian. (Declaration of Tanya E. Moore, Doc. 60-3, ¶ 2 &

27

Exh. A.) Plaintiff requests that the court amend the judgment to reflect Florez’s name change.

28

(Doc. 60.)
1

1

The Court will construe this request as one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a),

2

which “empowers federal courts to rely on state law to add judgment-debtors” to money

3

judgments. In re Levander, 180 F.3d 1114, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 1999).1 Under Rule 69(a)(1), a

4

federal district court sitting in California may apply California Code of Civil Procedure section

5

187 (“Section 187”), which permits “amend[ment of] a judgment to add additional judgment

6

debtors.” In re Levander, 180 F.3d at 1121 (quoting Issa v. Alzammar, 38 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1,

7

4 (1995)). “Section 187 is premised on the notion that [an] amendment [adding a judgment

8

debtor] ‘is merely inserting the correct name of the real defendant,’ such that adding a party to a

9

judgment after the fact does not present due process concerns.” Katzir’s Floor & Home Design,

10

Inc. v. M-MLS.com, 394 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2004). Section 187 is most frequently utilized

11

to add an individual or other corporate judgment debtor that is the alter ego of an original

12

corporate judgment debtor, such as after a name change, merger dissolution, or other related

13

change. E.g., Greenspan v. LADT, LLC, 191 Cal. App. 4th 486, 508 (2010). Yet, the statute is

14

broadly framed to permit a court to “use all the means necessary” to effectuate its jurisdiction.

15

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 187. Section 187 has therefore been interpreted to permit the modification

16

of judgments to reflect situations in which the judgment debtor changes their own name, such as

17

through marriage. See Arhart, Cal. Prac. Guide: Enf. J. & Debt (The Rutter Group 2021), Ch.

18

6G-14. The moving party bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

19

Highland Springs Conf. & Training Ctr. v. City of Banning, 244 Cal. App. 4th 267, 280 (2016).

20

The Court finds that Plaintiff has met his burden. The certified public records attached to

21

the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel indicate that Amanda Florez transferred property to herself

22

under a new name: Amanda A. Vartanian. (Doc. 60-3, Ex. A.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

23

Plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment.

24

///

25

1

26
27
28

Plaintiff frames the motion as one under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), which permits a court to “correct a
clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment,
order, or other part of the record.” (Doc. 60-1 at 2.) There is caselaw to support the use of Rule 60(a) to
change the name in a judgment if at the time the original judgment was entered there was a typographical
error or other similar “mistake” in the relevant documentation. Icho v. Hammer, 434 F. App’x 588, 589
(9th Cir. 2011). Here, however, Rule 60(a) is not relevant, as there is no indication that the judgment in
this case was erroneous in any way at the time it was entered.

2

1

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

2

For the reasons set forth above:

3

(1) Plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment (Doc. 60) is GRANTED.

4

(2) The Clerk of Court may, upon submission of the appropriate forms, issue an abstract of

5

judgment in favor of Plaintiff with the name Amanda A. Vartanian in place of Amanda

6

Florez.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 2, 2022

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3