Executing Against Business Owner Who Sold Business and Opened New One

[retiredspouse]

My question involves judgment recovery in the State of California.

My wife has in hand a Los Angeles Superior Court judgement that was secured under the auspices of the State of California Labor Commissioner. The judgement is against her former employer, who refused to comply with the terms of settlement agreement reached between parties through the efforts of the assigned deputy labor commissioner. The settlement agreement was converted by a hearing officer into an Order, Decision and Award that was neither honored nor appealed.

We intend to execute a Keeper-Cash Only; however, against exactly whom and where poses a problem.

The problem: The former employer sold the business (business "A") that my wife worked at and opened a similar business ("business "B") in the same shopping center. Both of these events occurred within the last 4 to 6 months - but after the settlement agreement was signed. The former owner is registered as a corporation with the California Secretary of State, but has not updated her address - the site of business "A.". A search on the County of Los Angeles Recorder's Office website reveals that she has not filed a new fictitous business name statement for business "B," and still has on file the fictitious business name statement for business "A."

The questions: What business name should be indicated on the writ of execution? What address? The same questions apply on the sheriff's instructions on the Keeper. Can we execute on business "A" under the new owner as the former employer has not updated her information with the state or county? Business "B" is floundering, while business "A" is prospering.

Answers to these questions would be sincerely appreciated. A hearty thanks from my wife and I.

[Mr. Knowitall]

If you are stating that your spouse obtained a judgment against a corporation that was sold, the shareholder(s) may have changed, but the corporate defendant is the same.

If you believe for some reason that the new corporation is a proper defendant, and your narrative is short on facts in that regard, you can bring an appropriate motion before the court that issued the judgment in order to try to pursue assets of the first corporation that have been improperly transferred to the second (assuming that's what you believe happened). You don't get the automatic right to go after a shareholder's new business, just because you have a judgment against a business they sold.

[retiredspouse]

Thank you, Mr. Knowitall. To clarify:

The corporation listed as the defendant, for example, "immigrationfraudpurveyor, inc.," dba as "one sleazy lady," sold the "one sleazy lady" enterprise to another individual, uitlizing the corporate name, "XYZ, Inc."

The enterprise "one sleazy lady" continues to operate under the original fictitious name "one sleazy lady," as per county records of this date.

Current Secretary of State records show the "immigrationfraudpurveyor, inc.," still at the address of the "one sleazy lady" enterprise. A Secretary of State corporate search this morning illustrated that "XYZ, inc." filed with the state in July of 2011 and is also at the very same address.

"Immigrationfraudpurveyor, inc.," renewed her filing with the Secretary of State in February 2012, which still indicates its corporate address at the same address as XYZ, Inc.," AND the very same address as the "one sleazy lady" enterprise.

The owner of "immigrationfraudpurveyor, inc.," "Ms. Sleazyoperator," opened a new business (Halcyonic Truncators and Escheators) approximately 500 yards from her old business, the "one sleazy lady" enterprise," which supposedly is in the possession now of "XYZ, Inc."

There is no reference of "Halcyonic Truncators and Escheators" in the "Immigrationfraudpurveyor, inc." records filed with the secretary of state, nor did " "Ms. Sleazyoperator" file a new fictitious name statement with the County of Los Angeles for her new business. As a matter of fact, she also didn't remove herself or her "one sleazy lady" enterprise from the County of Los Angeles Recorder's records within the 40 day time period allotted.

The new owners of "one sleazy lady" enterprise did not file a new fictitious name statement with the county, or submit anything that would reflect a change of ownership.

It would seemingly develop that the question is - since the new owner of the "one sleazy lady" enterprise is at the same corporate address uitlized by "Immigrationfraudpurveyor, inc." AND "XYZ, Inc.," and there is nothing that separates the two corporations nor the actual business enterprise itself underneath the same roof (i.e., separate offices, desks, files, etc.), could we send a sheriff out to this location to execute a "cash-only keeper?

Or can we only send a sheriff out to "Ms. Sleazyoperator's" new business enterprise, "Halcyonic Truncators and Escheators," to execute the "cash-only keeper?

I hope this clarifies the issue and question. Me being the the qintissential cynic, I had to throw a little humor into my inquiry. The characterizations, however, are correct.