Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: BC407124, Date: 2024-10-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC407124    Hearing Date: October 8, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A judgment was entered in this action in favor of Alfredo Garcia (Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor) and against Buena Creek Properties, LP (Defendant/Judgment Debtors) on May 10, 2010, in the total amount of $22,342.50.

On April 18, 2011, Judgment Creditor Garcia assigned the judgment to Ex Parte Collection Services, LLC (Assignee of Record). (Garcia Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 3.)

On July 30, 2019, the judgment was renewed in the amount of $44,451.13. (Garcia Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 3.)

On October 1, 2020, the California Secretary of State suspended Ex Parte Collection Services powers and privileges for nonpayment of taxes to the Franchise Tax Board. As a result, Ex Parte Collection Services is now legally unable to collect or enforce the judgment on Plaintiff Garcia’s behalf.

II. Procedural History

            The Complaint alleging a violation of the law on public accommodations for wheelchair use was filed in this action on February 5, 2009, and judgment was entered on May 10, 2010.

            On August 29, 2019, the judgment was renewed.  

            On August 16, 2024, Garcia filed the instant motion for order reassigning judgment.

            On September 24, 2024, Buena Creek Properties filed a notice of appearance and an opposition to Garcia’s motion.

II. Motion

California courts have inherent equitable and statutory powers and jurisdiction to enforce and compel obedience to their judgments, orders, and process. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 128(a)(4), 177, 187, 410.50.) 

Garcia moves the Court for an order reassigning the judgment in this case from Ex Parte Collection Services back to himself. He has submitted a copy of the Secretary of State’s Certificate of Status for Ex Parte Collection Services showing that the business is suspended. (Garcia Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 1.) Therefore, Ex Parte Collection Services is now legally unable to collect or enforce the judgment on Garcia’s behalf. (See Rev. & Tax. Code, § 23301; Reed v. Norman (1957) 48 Cal.2d 338, 342; Bourhis v. Lord (2013) 56 Cal.4th 320, 324; Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603-1604; Cal-Western Business Services, Inc. v. Corning Capital Group (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 304.) Through his attorney, Garcia asked Ex Parte Collection Services to reassign the judgment back so he can enforce it. (Garcia Decl. ¶¶ 6-7; Ex. 3.) Garcia asserts that Ex Parte Collection Services has refused to do so, leaving him no choice but to ask this Court to intervene. (Garcia Decl. ¶ 8.)

In opposition, Buena Creek Properties contends that this appears to be an attempt to have this Court administratively adjudicate a breach of contract claim and/or divorce court issue. Buena Creek Properties also argues that the motion should be denied because Ex Parte Collection Services is not a party to this action and is not properly before the Court. Buena Creek Properties further points out several concerns about a conflict of interest since, among other things, the same attorney currently representing Garcia on this motion represented or still represents Ex Parte Collection Services, Mr. Morse Mehrban, and the company’s organizer and agent for service of process appears to be a Ms. Julie Mehrban, begging the question as to the relationship amongst all these parties. (Opp. at pp. 1-2.)  There is no reply to these points.

Here, Garcia has failed to provide any legal authority supporting the reassignment. Ex Parte Collection Services is not a party before this Court, nor did the Court cause the assignment to occur; therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction to modify the assignment and/or reassign Garcia to the judgment.   

III. Conclusion

The motion for order reassigning judgment back to Plaintiff Alfredo Garcia is DENIED.