Plaintiff’s failure to allege alter ego theory does not preclude motion to amend judgment where alter ego had virtual representation in underlying litigation.
Cite as
2011 DJDAR 12024Published
Aug. 10, 2011Filing Date
Aug. 9, 2011THOMAS MISIK,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
THOMAS R. D?ARCO,
Defendant and Respondent.
No. B224203
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. GC041193)
California Courts of Appeal
Second Appellate District
Division Three
Filed August 9, 2011
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on July 27, 2011, be modified as follows:
On page 2, the second and third sentences of the first full paragraph are deleted and the following sentences are inserted in their place:
The judgment had found Sayrahan Group, LLC (Sayrahan) liable for breach of contract. The motion to amend the judgment relied on the alter ego doctrine to argue that the trial court should find that D?Arco was the alter ego of Sayrahan and should hold D?Arco liable for the judgment.
There is no change in the judgment.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424