Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 20BBCV00536, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT PER CRC 3.1308

The Court will attempt to post all Tentative Rulings at least the day prior to the hearing by 3:00 p.m.; however, the Court does not post Tentative Rulings for all matters.  

The
Court will indicate in the Tentative Ruling whether the Court is requesting oral argument.  For cases where the Court is not requesting argument, then pursuant to
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is
required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no
argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the
court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention
to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the
court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”   

Notice
may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818)
260-8412.

Notice of the ruling must be served as indicated in the tentative.  Remote appearances are permitted for all law and motion unless otherwise indicated by the Court.  

Case Number: 20BBCV00536    Hearing Date: December 8, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT ORDER

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

On September 3, 2020 Melissa Person (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Kenneth D. Mathis (“Mathis”) and Forward Studio City, Inc. dba Keller Williams Realty Studio City (“Keller Williams”). On November 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement. On April 14, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the conditions of the settlement agreement (“Agreement”) and for entry of judgment against Mathis and Keller Williams.

On May 15, 2023, judgment was entered against Mathis in the amount of $30,000 and against Keller Williams in the amount of $137,500. Additionally, $1,685 in attorney’s fees were awarded against Mathis and Keller Williams jointly and severally.

On June 30, 2023, the Court granted a writ of execution in the amount of $32,141.68 as to Mathis.

Plaintiff now requests an order from this Court assigning the rights to payments of real estate salespersons commissions or other payments due/to become due to Mathis from The Passman Group, Inc., 145 S. Fairfax Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90036 (“Passman Group”). Mathis does not oppose the motion.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

Under C.C.P. § 708.510(a), the Court may order the judgment debtor to assign to the judgment creditor or to an appointed receiver all or part of a right to payment due or to become due. The types of payments that can be assigned include rents, commissions, royalties, patent or copyright payments, and insurance policy loan value. (C.C.P., § 708.510(a).)

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. (C.C.P., § 708.510(c).)

Under C.C.P. § 708.510(d), the Court may order the assignment of property only to the extent necessary to satisfy the money judgment. 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.)

II.                 MERITS

Plaintiff submits that no payments from Mathis have been made to the outstanding balance of the judgment. (Engelhardt Decl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff states the current amount due and owing is $33,303.20. (Id.) Plaintiff states Mathis works as a real estate salesperson for the Passman Group and will continue to receive sales commissions and other compensation from them. (Engelhardt Decl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff states, on information and belief, that the right to these payments has not otherwise been assigned. (Engelhardt Decl. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff believes there is a need to restrain Mathis from otherwise encumbering or assigning these payments. (Engelhardt Decl. ¶ 12.)

Plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to establish that Mathis may be receiving commission payments from Passman Group pursuant to his employment with them as a real estate sales person. Mathis has not filed an opposition contending otherwise nor has Mathis filed any claim that any portion of the proceeds receivable by him from Passman Group are exempt from attachment.

Accordingly, the motion for an assignment order is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to submit a Proposed Order forthwith for the Court’s signature.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Melissa Person’s Motion for Assignment Order came on regularly for hearing on December 8, 2023, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT ORDER IS GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF IS TO SUBMIT A PROPOSED ORDER FOR THE COURT’S SIGNATURE.  

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: December 8, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles