Board of Trustees of the Kern County Workers' Electrical Pension Fund v. Atkins Specialty Services, Inc., 1:16-cv-01925

Plaintiffs are multiemployer fringe-benefit plans who obtained a stipulated judgment (later revised) against Atkins Specialty Services, Inc. (the dissolved corporate defendant) for unpaid contributions; the Revised Final Judgment was entered for $136,361.12.
After Defendant defaulted, Defendant’s principals Jeffrey and Rhonda Atkins dissolved the corporation, reported assets as repossessed, and formed Atkins Services Inc. (ASI) in 2017; the Atkinses served as officers of both entities.
Post‑judgment discovery showed use of the defendant’s bank account for significant personal expenditures by the Atkinses and that contribution reports after November 2017 were submitted under ASI’s name.
Plaintiffs moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 69 (applying Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 187) to amend the judgment to add Jeffrey and Rhonda Atkins as alter‑egos and ASI as a successor/mere continuation.
The magistrate judge recommended denial: (1) adding the Atkinses would violate due process because they did not control or actively defend the underlying litigation; and (2) successor liability against ASI failed because Plaintiffs did not prove transfer of the defendant’s principal assets for inadequate consideration (an essential element).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Add Jeffrey & Rhonda Atkins as alter egos	Atkinses ran the company, commingled funds, used corporate account for personal expenses, and thus should be liable	Atkinses were not parties, did not control or actively defend the suit, and lacked notice of personal liability	Denied — alter‑ego remedy would offend due process because Atkinses did not control or have occasion to defend the litigation
Add ASI as successor / mere continuation	ASI is essentially the same enterprise (same officers, continued reporting) and assumed assets/obligations	ASI performed different work; Defendant’s assets were repossessed (not transferred to ASI); no inadequate consideration shown	Denied — Plaintiffs failed to show transfer of principal assets or inadequate consideration, both required for mere‑continuation successor liability

In re Levander, 180 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir.) (federal courts may look to state law to add judgment debtors under Rule 69)
Katzir’s Floor & Home Design, Inc. v. M-MLS.com, 394 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir.) (discusses Rule 69, § 187, and due‑process limits on adding judgment debtors)
NEC Electronics Inc. v. Hurt, 208 Cal. App. 3d 772 (Cal. Ct. App.) (control of litigation standard for adding judgment debtors; notice/ability to defend)
Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court, 83 Cal. App. 4th 523 (Cal. Ct. App.) (elements and factors for alter‑ego piercing in California)
Motores de Mexicali v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.2d 172 (Cal.) (due‑process principle that parties must have opportunity to be heard)
McClellan v. Northridge Park Townhome Owners Ass’n, 89 Cal. App. 4th 746 (Cal. Ct. App.) (successor/mere continuation doctrine explained)
Maloney v. Am. Pharm. Co., 207 Cal. App. 3d 282 (Cal. Ct. App.) (inadequate consideration is crucial for mere‑continuation liability)
Wolf Metals Inc. v. Rand Pacific Sales, Inc., 4 Cal. App. 5th 698 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discusses limits on adding individuals as judgment debtors when company failed to defend)
21st Century Fin. Servs., LLC v. Manchester Fin. Bank, 255 F. Supp. 3d 1012 (S.D. Cal.) (burden and due‑process considerations in motions to add judgment debtors)