ARORA SOLUTIONS, LLC vs DE LIMA

23CV012694: ARORA SOLUTIONS, LLC vs DE LIMA 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Amend Judgment and for Assignment of Order in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line for Department 8C at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

23CV012694: ARORA SOLUTIONS, LLC vs DE LIMA 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Amend Judgment and for Assignment of Order in Department 8C

ID: 16039062174

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Plaintiff Arora Solutions, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to amend judgment and for assignment order is ruled upon as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact Defendant and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012694: ARORA SOLUTIONS, LLC vs DE LIMA 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Amend Judgment and for Assignment of Order in Department 8C

counsel is unable to contact Defendant prior to the hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or in person.

Background

Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant in pro per Matt De Lima (“Defendant”) on December 4, 2023 alleging breach of a loan agreement. Defendant filed an Answer on July 15, 2024. On October 31, 2025, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $153,720.64. On January 23, 2026, an amended judgment was entered to reflect an award of costs for Plaintiff.

Plaintiff seeks to amend the amended judgment to add TC District Enterprises LLC (“TC District”) as an additional judgment debtor on the basis that TC District is Defendant’s alter ego. Plaintiff submits that Defendant formed TC District on April 9, 2025, while this action was pending and before the original judgment was entered “while it was clear he would soon be a judgment debtor.” (Mot. MPA, p. 5:20.) Defendant is the sole member and manager of TC District. Plaintiff contends that on December 23, 2025, TC District acquired a commercial property located at 3678 Lake Tahoe Blvd, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 for $2,350,000.

Plaintiff asserts that the purchase was financed by two loans totaling a combined $2 million, with the remaining $350,000 being contributed by Defendant personally through capitalization of TC District. (See Flanagan Decl., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff also submits that Defendant has interchangeably used his residential address in Capitola and the South Lake Tahoe commercial address on various formal documents, with the Capitola address being listed on the property tax bill for the South Lake Tahoe property and on a demolition permit obtained on June 11, 2026, and the South Lake Tahoe address being used on Defendant’s motion to vacate judgment filed in this action on June 23, 2026.

Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant made wire transfer payments on TC District’s mortgage with his personal funds. This assertion is made on information and belief, “based on information provided to [Plaintiff’s counsel] by [his] senior paralegal who personally participated in a telephone call with the loan servicer on June 17, 2026.” (Flanagan Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. I.) Finally, Plaintiff submits that Defendant has not made any payments on the judgment to date, and Plaintiff’s counsel declares Defendant informed him on June 18, 2026 that he would not be paying the judgment. (Flanagan Decl., ¶ 3.)

Defendant opposes and contends that TC District is “a legitimate real estate development venture involving multiple partners and investors who have contributed substantial funds toward the acquisition, financing, and development of the South Lake Tahoe property.” (De Lima Decl., ¶ 2.) Defendant also denies contributing his personal funds towards the acquisition of the property or for any mortgage payments, and he asserts that these funds came from his partners and investors and TC District.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012694: ARORA SOLUTIONS, LLC vs DE LIMA 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Amend Judgment and for Assignment of Order in Department 8C

The Court notes that there is no proof of service accompanying Defendant’s opposition papers. There is also no reply on file. Thus, it appears that it is not proper to consider the opposition due to lack of service on Plaintiff. However, as discussed further below, Plaintiff’s motion is defective such that it must be denied regardless of whether it has been properly opposed.

Discussion

Amend Judgment

Plaintiff relies on Code of Civil Procedure section 187, which states:

When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 187.)

Under section 187, a trial court may amend a judgment “to add a judgment debtor where a person or entity is an alter ego of the original judgment debtor.” (Triyar Hospitality Management, LLC v. WSI (II)—HWP, LLC (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 636, 641.) The moving party must establish 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.” (Ibid.)

Plaintiff has not established the first element of this test. TC District was formed over two years into this litigation and approximately six months before judgment was entered, and thus could not have exerted any control over the underlying litigation during most of the pre-judgment proceedings. Even so, Plaintiff has not made any showing or attempted to show that TC District controlled the litigation after April 9, 2025. “‘Control of the litigation sufficient to overcome due process objections may consist of a combination of factors, usually including the financing of the litigation, the hiring of attorneys, and control over the course of the litigation.’ Clearly, some active defense of the underlying claim is contemplated.” (NEC Electronics Inc. v.

Hurt (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 772, 781, citations omitted (NEC).) In NEC, the judgment debtor defendant did not participate in the litigation after filing a general denial early in the case. Judgment was entered following a trial at which the defendant did not appear. Thus, the order amending the judgment to add the judgment debtor’s alter ego was reversed. (Id. at pp. 780-782.) Similarly,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012694: ARORA SOLUTIONS, LLC vs DE LIMA 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Amend Judgment and for Assignment of Order in Department 8C

here, Defendant filed an Answer and then did not participate in the litigation. Thus, “[t]here was no defense for [TC District] to control.” (Id. at p. 781.)

Plaintiff relies significantly on Curci Investments, LLC v. Baldwin (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 214 (Curci). However, that case did not address the control element. Instead, the court held that reverse veil piercing may be available in that particular case to amend the judgment to add an LLC as the judgment debtor’s alter ego, after the trial court had denied the motion to amend the judgment on the basis that reverse veil piercing was not viable in California. (See id. at pp. 219- 220, 224.) The court expressly declined to determine whether the LLC’s veil should be pierced and remanded to the trial court to make this determination. (Id. at p. 224.)

Additionally, even if the requirements to amend a judgment to add an alter ego under section 187 had been met, Plaintiff has not established that the Court has jurisdiction over TC District. For an amended judgment to be valid against an alter ego, the trial court must have jurisdiction over the alter ego. (Milrot v. Stamper Medical Corp. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 182, 186.) “Normally, jurisdiction is acquired by service [of process].” (Ibid.) Here, TC District has not been served and has not otherwise submitted to the Court’s jurisdiction, so an amended judgment listing TC District as a judgment debtor would be void.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to amend the amended judgment is DENIED.

Assignment Order

Plaintiff also seeks an assignment order under Code of Civil Procedure section 708.510 directing Defendant to assign to Plaintiff all of Defendant’s “rights to payment due or to become due from [TC District], including without limitation any surplus proceeds from any trustee’s foreclosure sale” of the South Lake Tahoe property. (Mot. MPA, p. 11:5-6.) Plaintiff’s reference to a potential foreclosure sale relates to a notice of default recorded against the property on May 18, 2026. However, Defendant has submitted evidence that the notice of default was rescinded in August. (See De Lima Decl., ¶ 10.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 708.510(a) states:

Except as otherwise provided by law, upon application of the judgment creditor on noticed motion, the court may order the judgment debtor to assign to the judgment creditor or to a receiver appointed pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 708.610) all or part of a right to payment due or to become due, whether or not the right is conditioned on future developments, including but not limited to the following types of payments:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012694: ARORA SOLUTIONS, LLC vs DE LIMA 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Amend Judgment and for Assignment of Order in Department 8C

(1) Wages due from the federal government that are not subject to withholding under an earnings withholding order.

(2) Rents.

(3) Commissions.

(4) Royalties.

(5) Payments due from a patent or copyright.

(6) Insurance policy loan value.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 708.510(a).)

The Court has broad discretion in deciding whether to order an assignment and in exercising its discretion may consider relevant factors such as the amount remaining due on the judgment and the amount remaining to be received on the right to payments. (Code Civ. Proc. § 708.510(c).)

Although Plaintiff seeks an assignment order for all payment rights to Defendant from TC District, it appears that Plaintiff was primarily seeking to assign payments Defendant would receive from the foreclosure sale of the South Lake Tahoe property. However, as noted above, the notice of default has been rescinded, so no foreclosure sale is currently pending. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to assign distributions from TC District to Defendant towards the judgment, it is unclear that any such distributions will be issued. Indeed, as Plaintiff points out, since Defendant is the sole member and manager of TC District, he seemingly controls whether TC District issues any distributions at all.

Even so, Defendant does not meaningfully oppose the request for an assignment order. The Court also notes that the entire judgment remains unpaid, and there is no showing from Defendant that any payments he may receive from TC District are necessary to support Defendant or Defendant’s household. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 708.510(c).) Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for an assignment order for any current or future payments due to Defendant from TC District is GRANTED.

Plaintiff shall submit a proposed assignment order consistent with this ruling.