Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

Judgment Creditor Nide LP obtained a judgment against Judgment Debtors Shlomo Mieri and Mino Meiri (“Debtors”) on November 30, 2023, in the amount of $166,715.30 (the “Judgment”).  An abstract was filed on February 27, 2024, and recorded in Los Angeles County on March 12, 2024.   

On March 19, 2024, after learning of this pending lawsuit against it by Judgment Debtors, Nide filed a notice of lien which was eventually settled for a one time payment of $40,000.  On June 14, 2024, this Court granted Judgment Creditor’s motion to enforce their lien in the amount of $40,000.  As of today, Nide’s Judgment remains unpaid and its lien in this matter unsatisfied.   

This hearing is on Nide’s motion for an order requiring the Debtors to assign their interest in the $40,000 settlement payment to Nide to the extent necessary to pay the Judgment.  Nide also moves the Court for an order restraining the Debtors from encumbering, assigning, disposing or spending the $40,000 settlement payment.  There was no opposition filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.   

LEGAL STANDARD 

Code Civ. Proc. § 708.510(a)¿states, in relevant part: 

“(a) 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.” 

In determining whether to order an assignment, the court may take into consideration all relevant factors, including the following: 

“(1) The reasonable requirements of a judgment debtor who is a natural person and of persons supported in whole or in part by the judgment debtor. 

(2) Payments the judgment debtor is required to make or that are deducted in satisfaction of other judgments and wage assignments, including earnings assignment orders for support. 

(3) The amount remaining due on the money judgment. 

(4) The amount being¿or to be received in satisfaction of the right to payment that may be assigned.” 

(Code Civ. Proc. § 708.510(c).)¿ 

Code Civ. Proc. § 708.520¿provides that “[w]hen an application is made pursuant to¿Section¿708.510¿or thereafter, the judgment creditor may apply to the court for an order restraining the judgment debtor from assigning or otherwise disposing of the right to payment that is sought to be assigned.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.520(a).)  “The court may issue an order pursuant to this section upon a showing of need for the order.  The court, in its discretion, may require the judgment creditor to provide an¿undertaking.” (Id.,¿§ 708.520(b).) “[T]here is a relatively low threshold” for “an adequate showing of need for purposes of obtaining a restraining order.”  (Legal Additions LLC v. Kowalski (C.D. Cal. July 26, 2011) 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81179 at * 7.) 

 

DISCUSSION 

The current balance due on the Judgment is $166,715.30.  Debtors have a right to payment of $40,000, which is less than the outstanding Judgment.  Debtors have not argued that this right to payment is exempt in any way.  Accordingly, the Court orders the Debtors to assign their right to payment of the $40,000 settlement to Nide to pay for the outstanding Judgment.   

The Court further orders that Debtors cannot assign or dispose of the right to payment that is being assigned.  Nide has sufficiently shown a need for the restraining order.  Judgment was entered on November 30, 2023.  It is now more than 10 months since the Judgment was issued, and the Debtors have made no payments.  The restraining order is necessary so that the right to payment will be available to be applied to the Judgment.  Debtors have ignored their obligations to satisfy the Judgment, and their counsel has been completely non-responsive to all communications.   

Finally, Nide asks the Court to order the Debtors to post an undertaking of $40,000 with the Court until the assignment is complete.  Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 708.520(b), the Court, in its discretion, may require the judgment creditor to provide an¿undertaking.  There is no provision authorizing the Court to require the judgment debtor to post an undertaking.  Accordingly, the Court denies Nide’s request that the Debtors be required to post an undertaking.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Nide LP’s motion for assignment and restraining order.   

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED:  October 25, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court