Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Damian Early sued Renee Harding and others in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) and for summary judgment under Rule 56(c). Both motions were fully briefed and submitted at a hearing on November 5, 2026, at which the plaintiff's counsel failed to appear. The plaintiff's second claim, for transfer in defraud of creditors, had already been dismissed with prejudice in an earlier order.
The remaining claims arose from a state court judgment the plaintiff had obtained against former defendant Rene Harding. The plaintiff sought to hold the defendants liable based on that judgment, even though the judgment was entered only against Rene Harding and not against the defendants. The plaintiff's theory of liability for most claims depended on the defendants being principals in an agency relationship with their daughter, Rene Harding.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's first, third, fourth, and sixth claims. It found that these claims all depended on the defendants being bound by the state court judgment obtained against Rene Harding. Under California law, a judgment creditor seeking to add non-parties to a judgment must show that the non-parties are the alter ego of the original party and must satisfy due process by demonstrating that the new party controlled the litigation giving rise to the judgment. The plaintiff showed neither. The defendants were not informed about the state court action, so they did not and could not control the litigation that produced the judgment, giving them no opportunity to litigate and satisfy due process.
The court also found no genuine dispute as to any material fact that could establish an agency relationship between the defendants and Rene Harding. In his own deposition, the plaintiff admitted having no knowledge of either defendant controlling Rene Harding or directing her conduct in the joint venture agreement. The mere fact that the defendants were at the premises and observed construction and did not correct Rene Harding when she said the property she was leasing was hers was insufficient as a matter of law to create an agency relationship. As a result, the equitable subordination, constructive trust, unfair competition, and judicial foreclosure claims each failed as a matter of law.
The court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the plaintiff's fifth claim, for theft. The plaintiff had sued under California Penal Code section 484, the criminal theft statute. The court found that the statute contains no language suggesting a private right of action and found no authority for any civil enforcement mechanism. Because section 484 does not provide for civil enforcement, the theft claim failed as a matter of law. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of the defendants.
Key Takeaways
- A judgment creditor seeking to add non-parties to a judgment under California law must show both alter ego and that the new party controlled the underlying litigation, ensuring due process.
- Defendants who were never informed of a state court action cannot be bound by the resulting judgment because they had no opportunity to litigate it.
- A plaintiff's admission in deposition that he had no knowledge of the defendants controlling the alleged agent's conduct can defeat any claim premised on an agency relationship.
- Merely being present at a property and failing to correct an alleged agent's misstatement of ownership is insufficient as a matter of law to create an agency relationship.
- California Penal Code section 484, the criminal theft statute, does not provide a private right of action for civil enforcement.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the due process limits on binding non-parties to a judgment they had no opportunity to contest, and it underscores that agency-based liability requires actual evidence of control rather than mere presence or silence. It also confirms that criminal statutes like California Penal Code section 484 cannot be used as a vehicle for private civil theft claims.