Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 20STCP02298, Date: 2024-04-17 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 20STCP02298    Hearing Date: April 17, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Relevant Procedural History

On July 20, 2020, Plaintiff Aria Resort & Casino Holdings, LLC (ARC), a Nevada limited liability company, filed an application for entry of judgment on sister-state judgment. The application involved a $145,578.82 Nevada state court judgment in favor of Plaintiff ARC as against Defendant Han Yeo, an individual residing in Glendale, California.

That same day, the Clerk entered the sister-state judgment against Defendant Yeo.

Later that day, Plaintiff ARC served notice of entry of judgment on sister-state judgment against Defendant Yeo.

On February 21, 2024, Department 1 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse reassigned this action to Department 40 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse (the Court).

B. Motion Before the Court

On March 27, 2024, Plaintiff ARC filed a motion for (1) an assignment order directing that “[a]ll payments, profits and/or commissions due or to become due to [Defendant Yeo] from any of the following entities[–]Brand Worldwide Group, Inc.; Brand Restaurant Group, Inc.; Kaviar Sushi Bar; and/or any of their subsidiaries[–]shall be paid to the [Plaintiff ARC], in care of its attorneys of record, Law Office of William A. Orzel, to be applied to the judgment herein until such judgment is fully satisfied or this order is amended,” and (2) an order decreeing that Defendant Yeo “is forbidden to assign, encumber, spend or otherwise transfer said income or other earnings owed or payable so that the right to payment sought will be available to be applied to the [sister-state] judgment.”

Plaintiff ARC served this motion on Defendant Yeo by mail to Defendant Yeo’s residential address in Glendale, California and to Defendant Yeo’s business address in Pasadena, California.

Defendant Yeo failed to oppose Plaintiff ARC’s motion within the statutory period.

No reply or notice of non-opposition from Plaintiff ARC appears in the record.

Plaintiff ARC’s motion for assignment order is now before the Court.

II. Motion for Assignment Order: GRANTED.

A. Legal Standard

“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 … 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: (1) [w]ages due from the federal government that are not subject to withholding under an earnings withholding order,” “(2) [r]ents,” “(3) [c]ommissions,” “(4) [r]oyalties,” “(5) [p]ayments due from a patent or copyright,” and “(6) [i]nsurance policy loan value” (Code Civ. Proc., §708.510, subds. (a)(1)-(6).)

In determining whether an assignment order should be issued, the Court should consider (1) the reasonable requirements of a judgment debtor who is a natural person and any dependents of the judgement debtor; (2) other payments the judgment debtor must make in satisfaction of other judgments and wage assignments; (3) the amount remaining to be due on this judgment; and (4) the amount of the right to payment that is being assigned to the creditor. (Code Civ. Proc., §708.510, subds. (c)(1)-(4).)

In conjunction with an application for an assignment order, a judgment creditor may seek a restraining order preventing the judgment debtor from assigning or otherwise disposing of the right assigned to creditor under CCP §708.510. (Code Civ. Proc., §708.520, subd. (a).) 

B. Analysis

Plaintiff’s motion involves an application by a judgment creditor for an order assigning a judgment debtor’s payment rights in Brand Worldwide Group, Inc., Brand Restaurant Group, Inc., Kaviar Sushi Bar, and/or any of their subsidiaries, and that forbids Defendant Yeo from doing anything to assign, encumber, spend or otherwise transfer said income or other earnings owed or payable so that the right to payment sought will be available to be applied to the sister-state judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., §708.510, subds. (a); see Mot., Proposed Order.)

Plaintiff’s motion attaches proof of service satisfying statutory requirements. (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.510, subd. (b); see Mot., POS [service by mail].)

Plaintiff’s motion is supported by a declaration from Plaintiff ARC’s counsel and exhibits that are attached to counsel’s declaration, which explain the connections that Defendant Yeo is alleged to have to the above referenced companies/businesses. (Mot., Orzel Decl., ¶¶ 1-6, Exs. 1-5.)

Defendant Yeo has failed to oppose this motion, lending to its merit. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Based on the above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff ARC’s motion. 

III. Conclusion

Plaintiff Aria Resort & Casino Holdings, LLC’s Motion for Assignment Order and Order Restraining Judgment Debtor is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Aria Resort & Casino Holdings, LLC’s proposed order is concurrently signed by the Court.