Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 19-01106394, Date: 2022-11-29 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Post-Judgment Discovery Responses

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiffs 3H Investments, LLC, Melissa Priest, and Richard Priest move for an order compelling Defendant Kathleen Duncan to serve responses to post-judgment interrogatories and requests for production of documents.

The Discovery Act authorizes a judgment creditor to locate the judgment debtor’s assets via post-judgment discovery.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 708.010, 708.020, 708.030.) A judgment creditor may propound written interrogatories and requests for production to the judgment debtor in the manner provided by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.010 et seq. and section 2031.010. The interrogatories and requests for production may seek information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment.  Should responding party fail to respond, discovery requests may be enforced to the extent practicable in the same manner as discovery requests in a civil action.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 708.020(a), (c), 708.030(a), (c).)

“Money judgment” means “that part of a judgment that requires the payment of money.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 680.270.)

On August 25, 2022, Judgment was entered awarding Plaintiff 3H Investments, LLC $176,280 in withheld distributions plus 10 percent interest; awarding Plaintiffs $11,240.95 in arbitration costs and $211,600 in attorney fees; and decreeing the dissolution of Airport Storage, LLC.  (ROA 101.)

Defendant Duncan has paid the entire $399,120.95 owed under the Judgment.  (Declaration of Brendan M. Loper, ¶ 15; Declaration of Kathleen M. Duncan, ¶ 2.)  Thus, Defendants argue the money judgment has been fully satisfied and Plaintiffs’ attempts at post-judgment discovery are improper.

Plaintiffs argue the money judgment has not been satisfied because they still need to locate, distribute, and allocate hundreds of thousands of dollars in the winding up of Airport Storage, LLC.  They contend that winding up an asset and distributing its cash is a money judgment. 

Plaintiffs’ argument is unavailing.  “A money judgment ‘must be stated with certainty and should specify the amount.’ ”  (Estate of Kampen (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 971, 986.)  The sum to be distributed in the winding up of Airport Storage, LLC is not a fixed, certain amount.  Therefore, the winding up portion of the Judgment cannot be a money judgment.  (See also id., at p. 987 [holding that an order for the distribution of assets in an estate was not a judgment that requires the payment of money, but a judgment distributing assets].)  Plaintiffs’ argument that their pending motions for additional awards for costs incurred fails for the same reason.  Given that the motions are pending and have not been ruled upon, there is no certain sum and, therefore, no money judgment.

Further, Defendants have filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s August 25, 2022 Judgment of Arbitration Award.  (ROA 195.)  The perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from, including enforcement of the judgment.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 916(a).)  The statutes allowing for post-judgment written discovery are for the express purpose of aiding in enforcement of money judgments.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 708.020(a) [“The judgment creditor may propound written interrogatories to the judgment debtor … requesting information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment.”]; 708.030(a) [“A judgment creditor may serve an inspection demand on a judgment debtor to obtain information to aid in enforcement of a money judgment.”].)

Plaintiffs argue there is no automatic stay because Defendants have not filed an undertaking.  However, Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1 only requires an undertaking to stay enforcement of a judgment for money or the payment of money, or costs awarded under sections not applicable here.  As discussed above, Defendants have satisfied the money judgment here and, therefore, no undertaking is required. 

Given the above, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ post-judgment written discovery to be improper.  Therefore, the Motion is DENIED.

The Court declines to award sanctions.

Plaintiff to give notice.