Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 20SMCP00318, Date: 2024-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 20SMCP00318, Date: 2024-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20SMCP00318 Hearing Date: October 18, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Navitas Credit Corp. v. Babaali, Case no. 20SMCP00318

Hearing date October 18, 2024

Defendants’ Motion to Require Plaintiff to File Satisfaction of Judgment

Plaintiff Navitas received judgment against defendants Hossein Babaali and Hossein Babaali, M.D. Inc. for $155,258.30 on 9/16/2020. Plaintiff subsequently offered on 12/12/2022 to compromise the judgment and accept $120,000 in satisfaction, conditioned on receipt of payment by 1/20/2023. Decl. Small II para. 1.

Defendants paid $120,000 between 1/23/23 and 8/31/23. Decl. Babaali para. 7. Defendants move for an order requiring plaintiff to file a satisfaction of judgment. Plaintiff opposes.

Evidentiary Objections

Babaali Objections 1-2 OVERRULED, objections 3-4 SUSTAINED (relevance, character evidence.)

Navitas Objections 1-6 OVERRULED.

Defendants’ Motion for Order Requiring Plaintiff to File Satisfaction of Judgment

A judgment may be satisfied by acceptance by the judgment creditor of a lesser sum in full satisfaction of the judgment. Code Civ. Proc. §724.010(a). When a money judgment is satisfied, the judgment creditor shall file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. Code Civ. Proc. §724.030. If a judgment has been satisfied, and the creditor has not filed a satisfaction of judgment, judgment debtor may serve a demand that judgment creditor file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment. Code Civ. Proc. §724.050.

Defendants contend plaintiff made an offer on 12/12/2022 that defendants accepted and subsequently satisfied via the $120,000 paid between 1/23/2023 and 8/31/2023. The declaration of counsel Small shows plaintiff conditioned acceptance of the $120,000 on full payment on or before 1/20/23. Decl. Small II para. 1; ex. 1.

Defendants failed to satisfy plaintiff’s established necessary condition. Per Babaali’s declaration, the full $120,000 was remitted. Decl. Babaali para. 7. This is not disputed. However, the first payment of $50,000 was not remitted until 1/23/2023, 3 days after the established deadline. Id.; Decl. Small II ex. 1. The subsequent payment was made months later.

Defendants assert defendant Babaali appeared in pro per at a judgment debtor exam 8/28/2023, at which plaintiff’s attorney informed him a final payment of $20,000 would settle the matter in full. Decl. Babaali para. 20. Defendants further assert subsequent payment of $20,000 was wired to plaintiff 8/31/2023 with the message “Paid in full what I owed to Navitas upon receipt by Counsel." Decl. Babaali para. 22, ex. 2.

Plaintiff argues defendants’ 8/31/2023 payment does not constitute accord and satisfaction. The court agrees. A unilateral message attached to a wire transfer does not create a binding agreement between the parties. Defendants fail to offer evidence or authority that a wire transfer can create an accord under division 11 of the Cal. Com. Code.

Further, plaintiff asserts no such offer was made to defendant Babaali on 8/28/2023. Decl. Small II pars. 7-8. Plaintiff argues defendants offered to satisfy the matter for a final payment of $20,000. Id. at paras. 9, 13.

Defendants assert that plaintiff’s failure to respond to defendants’ offer or reject defendants’ 8/31/2023 wire transfer constitutes acceptance of the final payment of $20,000. Defendants also argue plaintiff’s failure to return the payments received demonstrates acceptance of a partial sum in satisfaction of the full judgment. These arguments are unavailing.

Defendants cannot create a unilateral condition of satisfaction as the party against whom judgment was entered. Further, defendants cannot argue that a judgment can only be satisfied by a single lump-payment. Plaintiff is not obliged to return payments made towards satisfaction of a judgment. As plaintiff demonstrated, defendants initially owed $155,258.30, of which only $120,000 has been collected. Plaintiffs further assert that over $100,000 in remaining payments and subsequent interest remain unpaid. Defendants have not satisfied the judgment. DENIED.