Department 58

Hearing Date: October 26, 2023

Case Name: Banco Popular North America v. Empire Media Enterprises

Case No.: BC398454

Motion: Motion for an Order under Code of Civil Procedure section 683.020

Moving Party: Defendant Lionel Jenkins

Responding Party: None

Tentative Ruling: The Motion for Order Extinguishing Judgment Lien pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 683.020 is denied.

On September 19, 2008, Plaintiff Banco Popular North America filed a Complaint against Defendants Empire Media Enterprises, Inc. and Lionel Jenkins (Defendants). A judgment was entered against Defendants on April 3, 2009 (Judgment).

On June 23, 2023, Defendant Lionel Jenkins now moves for order Extinguishing the Judgment Lien pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 683.020. No opposition was filed.

The motion is denied.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Jenkins moves on the grounds that Judgment was not renewed within the 10-year period as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 683.020.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 683.120, a “judgment creditor may renew a judgment by filing an application for renewal of the judgment with the court in which the judgment was entered.” That application can be filed any time before the expiration of the 10-year period of enforceability provided by section 683.020. (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.130, subd. (a).) Section 683.140 sets forth the requirements of the application for renewal, which include, among other things: the title of the court, the case number, the date of entry of the judgment and any renewals, the name and address of the judgment creditor and judgment debtor, and in the case of a money judgment, the information necessary to compute the amount of the judgment as renewed. “Upon the filing of the application, the court clerk shall enter the renewal of the judgment in the court records.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.150.) The “entry of the renewal of the judgment is purely ministerial.” (Jonathan Neil & Associates, Inc. v. Jones (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1487.)

“Code of Civil Procedure section 683.020, which defines the period for enforceability of judgments, provides after the expiration of 10 years after the date of entry of a money judgment ... the judgment may not be enforced.” (Kertesz v. Ostrovsky (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 369, 372.) Code of Civil Procedure section 683.020 also provides that after this 10 year period “[a]ny lien created by an enforcement procedure pursuant to the judgment is extinguished.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.020, subd. (c).)

Here, on April 3, 2009, a judgment was entered in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC398454 against Defendants Empire Media Enterprises and Lionel Jenkins. An abstract of judgment was issued on June 25, 2009 and recorded thereafter in the County of San Bernardino. (Lee Decl., Ex. A.) To date, the judgment has not been renewed. (Lee Decl., Ex. B.)

Defendant Jenkins now seeks an order “declaring the judgment issued in this case is no longer enforceable and any lien created by an enforcement procedure pursuant to the judgment is extinguished.” (Proposed Order.) However, this requested relief is not proper under the statute. (See e.g., Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V v. KXD Technology, Inc. (C.D. Cal., July 10, 2020, No. CV 07-6117 AHS) 2020 WL 5092447.) As explained in Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V v. KXD Technology, Inc.:

“Defendant's reliance on the subsection of California Code of Civil Procedure § 683.020 that provides where a judgment is no longer enforceable, any judgment lien created pursuant to that judgment is extinguished, does not alter the analysis because it does not create a mechanism for a court to find a judgment lien is extinguished absent an enforcement action. Thus, even if the limitations period of California Code of Civil Procedure § 683.020 has run, the statute does not authorize the Court to declare that the judgment lien is extinguished absent an enforcement action.” (Id. at *3; see also Injazat Technology Fund B.S.C. v. Najafi (N.D. Cal., Sept. 2, 2022, No. 11-CV-04133-PJH) 2022 WL 4021842, at *2.)

This is a peculiar result. The matter may require legislative attention. The Court has found no authority, however, authorizing the relief Defendant seeks. Defendant appears to be correct that the underlying Judgment is no longer enforceable, but based on the cases above, the Court cannot grant the relief sought under Code of Civil Procedure section 683.020.

The Motion is denied.