Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 20STCV30362, Date: 2025-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV30362    Hearing Date: May 19, 2025    Dept: 14

#4

Case Background

Decedent Devonte Whetstone died of a heroin overdose at Defendant’s drug rehab center.

On August 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed her Complaint for (1) Dependent Adult Abuse/Neglect; (2) Negligence; (3) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention; and (4) Wrongful Death against Defendants Grace Hope Treatment & Recovery Centers, Inc. (“Center”); Grace Nwankolo Uwadiale (“Uwadiale”); and DOES 1-100. On September 18, 2020, Defendant Uwadiale filed her Answer.

On August 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed her Complaint for (1) Dependent Adult Abuse/Neglect; (2) Negligence; (3) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention; and (4) Wrongful Death against Defendants Grace Hope Treatment & Recovery Centers, Inc. (“Center”); Grace Nwankolo Uwadiale (“Uwadiale”); and DOES 1-100. On September 18, 2020, Defendant Uwadiale filed her Answer. On January 21, 2021, the default of Defendant Center was entered.

On March 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed four “Amendments to Complaint” substituting Defendants Melissa Uwadiale, Regina Nwani, Lynn Uwadiale, and Kate Odum in lieu of DOES 1-4, respectively. On January 18, 2022, the default of Defendant Melissa Uwadiale was entered. On January 19, 2022, the defaults of Defendants Regina Nwani and Lynn Uwadiale were entered.

On May 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed two “Amendments to Complaint” substituting Defendants S.L. Hobson Enterprises LLC and Steven Hobson in lieu of DOES 5-6, respectively.

On July 21, 2021, default was entered against Defendant Center.

On November 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed an “Amendment to Complaint” substituting Defendant Michael Bishara, M.D. (“Bishara”) in lieu of DOE 7. On January 11, 2022, Defendant Bishara filed his Answer.

On November 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement.

On December 2, 2022, the Court granted Defendant Bishara’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of Bishara.

On February 2, 2023, Defendants Grace Uwadiale, Melissa Uwadiale, Lynn Uwadiale, Nwani, Odum, Hobson Enterprises, and Steven Hobson were dismissed.

On March 1, 2023, Default Judgment was entered against Defendant Center in the amount of $10,312,507.60.

On May 7, 2025, the Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the issue of the assignment amount and continued the matter.

Instant Pleading

Plaintiff moves for an order assigning Defendant Center’s right to payment from Anthem Blue Cross (Anthem) to Plaintiff.

Decision

Plaintiff’s motion for an assignment order is GRANTED. Plaintiff must submit a revised proposed order within 10 days of receiving notice of this order.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for an order assigning Center’s right to payment from Anthem to Plaintiff.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure, section 708.510(a) states:¿”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 appointed pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 708.610) 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) Wages due from the federal government that are not subject to withholding under an earnings withholding order.

(2) Rents.

(3) Commissions.                                                                                                                           

(4) Royalties.

(5) Payments due from a patent or copyright.

(6) Insurance policy loan value.” 

Under section 708.510, subdivision (d), the court may order the assignment of property only to the extent necessary to satisfy the money judgment.¿(Code Civ. Proc., section 708.510(d).)¿The motion must include sufficient facts to permit the court to make a determination that the payment is assignable to the judgment creditor. (Kracht v. Perrin (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1019, 1023.) 

Relevant factors the Court may take into consideration when making an assignment order include the judgment debtor’s reasonable requirements if they are a natural person, payments the judgment debtor is required to make to satisfy other judgments and wage assignments, the amount remaining due on the judgment, and the amount to be received in satisfaction of the right to payment that may be assigned. (Code Civ. Proc., section 708.510, subd. (c).) Construing all the applicable statutes together, the “assignment order” contemplated by Code of Civil Procedure, section 708.510, et seq. must include a court order that assigns a right to payment outright (not simply an order directing the judgment debtor to do so).   

Analysis

Here, Plaintiff adequately describes the payment rights she seeks as the payments Center has received and continues to receive from Anthem for rehabilitation related medical services. (Jen Decl., ¶¶5-6.) Center failed to pay any part of the judgment against it as of the date this motion was filed. (Id., ¶4.)

The Court is satisfied that an assignment order is necessary here because the judgment is wholly unsatisfied after two years. The assignment would allow Plaintiff to collect from a confirmed source of Center’s income.

In opposition, Center argues that the health care checks it receives from Anthem are not payments which may be assigned under Code Civ. Proc., section 708.510 because the checks are not a form of payment which appears under section 708.510(a). However, the list enumerated under subdivision (a) are non-exclusive. Because the payments from Anthem are a right to payment due or to become due, the Court finds the payments are assignable under section 708.510.

Center next argues that the payments are expressly exempt under Code Civ. Proc., section 704.130. However, the exemptions under Code Civ. Proc., sections 703.010 to 706 apply only to property of natural persons. (Code Civ. Proc., section 703.020.) Here, Center is a corporate entity and cannot file a claim of exemption to exempt these funds.  

At the last hearing on this matter, the Court was concerned about the amount of the assignment order. Defendant Grace Uwadiale settled with Plaintiff for an unknown amount in a confidential settlement. (Uwadiale Decl., ¶2.) Because Uwadiale and Center are joint tortfeasors, the judgment against Center should be reduced by the amount Uwadiale has already paid. Additionally, the parties represented that Plaintiff completed a bank levy and received funds from Center’s bank account. The Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the amount of the assignment order.

Plaintiff properly submitted supplemental briefing, noting the amount of the settlement amount, the levy amount, and other amounts including post-judgment interest and the cost of filing this motion. The Court finds the amount is properly calculated and grants the motion for an assignment order in the amount of $12,569,953.92.

The Court also notes defects in the proposed order. The proposed order directs Center to pay payments received by Anthem to Plaintiff in paragraph 3. However, the Court is only empowered to assign the right to payment to Plaintiff outright. Thus, paragraph 3 shall be stricken from the final order.

Plaintiff must submit a revised proposed order with the updated assignment amount and without paragraph 3 from the original order.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion for an assignment order is GRANTED. Plaintiff must submit a revised proposed order within 10 days of receiving notice of this order.