Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 19STCVV46869, Date: 2023-05-08 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 19STCVV46869    Hearing Date: May 8, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

The Court has reviewed the moving papers.  No opposition papers were filed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

BACKGROUND

On December 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging: (1) breach of written promissory note; (2) common count-money lent; (3) common count- money paid, laid out and expended; (4) breach of personal guaranty; (5) false promise; (6) intentional misrepresentation; (7) negligent misrepresentation; (8) aiding and abetting; (9) violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200; (10) unjust enrichment; and (11) constructive trust.

On November 19, 2020, the Court entered default judgment in the amount of $508,309.18 against Defendants (the “Judgment”).  On April 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for an assignment order (the “Motion”) directing Defendant Juijun He (“He”), his spouse Yan Rong Liu (“Liu”) (collectively, “Judgment Debtors”), and any of their third-party obligors to assign any of their rights to payment due from a number of business entities to Plaintiff in order to satisfy the $624,093.22 of the Judgment that remains unsatisfied.

DISCUSSION

CCP section 708.510, subdivision (a) states, in relevant part: 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. 

(CCP 708.510, subd. (a).) 

CCP section 708.510, subdivision (c) provides: In determining whether to order an assignment or the amount of an assignment pursuant to subdivision (a), 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. 

5.      

(CCP § 708.510, subd. (c).) 

Under CCP section 708.510, subdivision (d), the court may order the assignment of property only to the extent necessary to satisfy the money judgment.  (CCP § 708.510, subd. (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.)

In support of the Motion, Plaintiff provides evidence that the principal of the Judgment remains unsatisfied, and post-judgment interest, costs, and fees have accrued.  (See Declaration of Jerry Jen (“Jen Decl.”) ¶¶ 10-11.)  Plaintiff has learned that He is related to and has interests in numerous business entities.  (See Jen Decl. ¶¶ 4-8, Exhibits B-E.) Liu is He’s spouse and holds a community property interest in He’s business assets.  (See Jen Decl. ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated a right to an assignment order to assign Judgment Creditor’s payment rights to satisfy the Judgment.  For this reason and because it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motion.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

         Dated this 8th day of May 2023