Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 22STCV13730, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13730    Hearing Date: April 17, 2025    Dept: 58

Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date:             April 17, 2025

Case Name:                Cagney v. County of Los Angeles

Case No.:                    22STCV13730

Matter:                        Motion to Compel Disclosure of Settlement Terms

Moving Party:             Third-Party LA Financial Credit Union

Responding Party:      Plaintiff Richard Todd Hicks

Tentative Ruling:      The Motion to Compel Disclosure of Settlement Terms is granted.         

             On March 4, 2025, Third-Party LA Financial Credit Union[1] filed a motion to compel the disclosure of the settlement terms between Plaintiffs Peter Cagney, Richard Todd Hicks Mindy Paige, and Karen Thorp and Defendant County of Los Angeles, pursuant to Codde of Civil Procedure section 708.420, subdivision (g). Plaintiff Richard Todd Hicks filed an opposition.

            The motion is granted.  

Discussion

            Third-Party LA Financial Credit Union (LAF) moves for the disclosure of the settlement terms between Plaintiffs Peter Cagney, Richard Todd Hicks Mindy Paige, and Karen Thorp and Defendant County of Los Angeles, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 708.420, subdivision (g).

            The Enforcement of Judgments Law (§ 680.010 et seq.) “is a comprehensive statutory scheme for the enforcement of civil judgments in California.” (Grayson Services, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 563, 569; see SBAM Partners, LLC v. Wang (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 903, 909.) Section 708.410 “allows a party who has a money judgment against another to obtain a lien on that person's right to money in a later lawsuit. In particular, it allows a ‘judgment creditor who has a money judgment against a judgment debtor who is a party to a pending action’ to obtain a lien on ‘[t]he rights of such judgment debtor to money or property under any judgment subsequently procured in the action.’ ” (Gilman v. Dalby (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 923, 926; see Oldham v. California Capital Fund, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 421, 430 [citing Section 708.410].)

Specifically, Section 708.410 authorizes “[a] judgment creditor” to impose a lien based on “a money judgment against a judgment debtor who is a party to a pending action or special proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.410, subd. (a).) Section 708.410, subdivision (a) authorizes such a lien, “to the extent required to satisfy the judgment creditor's money judgment, on both of the following: [¶] (1) Any cause of action of such judgment debtor for money or property that is the subject of the action or proceeding. [¶] (2) The rights of such judgment debtor to money or property under any judgment subsequently procured in the action or proceeding.”

            Once the judgment creditor files and serves notice of the lien, any “compromise, dismissal, settlement, or satisfaction of the pending action” requires either court approval or the judgment creditor's written consent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.440, subd. (a).) To obtain court approval of a settlement, the judgment debtor must file a noticed motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.440, subd. (b).) After a hearing, the trial court “may, in its discretion, ... make an order ... that may include such terms and conditions as the court deems necessary.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.440, subd. (b).)

            However, there are several statutory requirements to creating a lien. A judgment creditor creates a lien under section 708.410 by filing “a notice of lien and an abstract or certified copy of the judgment creditor's money judgment in the pending action or special proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.410, subd. (b).) The judgment creditor must also serve on all parties in the action or special proceeding a copy of the notice of lien and a statement of the date when the notice of lien was filed in the action or special proceeding, although “[f]ailure to serve all parties as required ... does not affect the lien created by the filing under subdivision (b), but the rights of a party are not affected by the lien until the party has notice of the lien.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.410, subd. (c).)

            As relevant here, section 708.420, which sets for the contents of the notice of lien, requires that the lien contain: “A statement that no compromise, dismissal, settlement, or satisfaction of the pending action or proceeding or any of the judgment debtor's rights to money or property under any judgment procured therein may be entered into by or on behalf of the judgment debtor, and that the judgment debtor may not enforce the judgment debtor's rights to money or property under any judgment procured in the action or proceeding by a writ or otherwise, unless one of the following requirements is satisfied: [¶] (1) The prior approval by order of the court in which the action or proceeding is pending has been obtained. [¶] (2) The written consent of the judgment creditor has been obtained or the judgment creditor has released the lien. [¶] (3) The money judgment of the judgment creditor has been satisfied.” [Italics added.]

            In this case, third party LAF filed a Notice of Lien as to Plaintiff Richard Todd Hicks on October 10, 2022. Recently, Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a conditional settlement pending approval by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. LAF requested documents evidencing the proposed settlement, but Plaintiff Hicks’s counsel refused. (Graziano Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. A.) LAF argues that it is entitled to view the proposed settlement terms because its written consent is required under section 708.420.

            In opposition, Plaintiff does not dispute that a lien holder is entitled to inspect a judgment debtor’s settlement terms under section 708.420. Instead, Plaintiff argues that LAF failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 708.410(b)’s requirement to file an abstract or certified copy of its judgment and, as such, does not have a valid lien against Plaintiff Hicks.

            Plaintiff also argues that LAF failed to comply with the requirement in Code of Civil Procedure section 684.020 to serve the judgment debtor, Plaintiff Hicks – not the judgment debtor’s attorney – with a copy of its Notice of Lien.

            In response to this argument, on April 7, 2025, LAF filed a Notice of Lien that was served on Plaintiff Hicks and that attached a copy of a recorded Abstract of Judgement.

Conclusion

The motion to compel the disclosure of the settlement terms is granted.  Plaintiff Hicks shall provide to LAF under a protective order all documents reflecting Hicks’s settlement with Defendant on or before April 30, 2025.