Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 19STCV20062, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV20062    Hearing Date: January 31, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion for an award of after-judgment costs totaling $6,233.22 incurred in enforcing the judgment is GRANTED.

On June 7, 2019, Plaintiff Jacob Reich filed a Complaint against Defendant Mansour Hashem. On September 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (SAC) alleging: (1) breach of written contract; (2) money had and received; (3) common counts; (4) open book account; (5) account stated; (6) failure to honor checks; (7) fraud; (8) negligence; (9) unjust enrichment; (10) judiciary foreclosure; and (11) reformation of contract.

On September 9, 2019, Defendant filed a XC against Plaintiff, setting forth claims for (1) fraud, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) declaratory relief. 

Now, Plaintiff moves for an order awarding reasonable costs enforcing the judgment.

            The motion is unopposed.

Discussion 

            Plaintiff moves to recover costs incurred enforcing the 6/3/2021 judgment for the principal sum of $15,000.00, following an order granting Plaintiff attorney fees for Defendant’s frivolous anti-SLAPP motion.

            This is not the first motion of its kind. The Court granted a similar motion on 2/7/2022. Then, the Court tentatively granted a similar motion set for a hearing on 11/7/2022, but continued the hearing after Defendant moved ex parte to continue the motion based on the state of his health.

            This third motion, which seeks costs incurred after 9/29/2022, is unopposed. Thus, Defendant is considered to have conceded to the merits of the motion.

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for an award of after-judgment costs is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion for an order of assignment and restraining order is GRANTED.  

On June 7, 2019, Plaintiff Jacob Reich filed a Complaint against Defendant Mansour Hashem. On September 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (SAC) alleging: (1) breach of written contract; (2) money had and received; (3) common counts; (4) open book account; (5) account stated; (6) failure to honor checks; (7) fraud; (8) negligence; (9) unjust enrichment; (10) judiciary foreclosure; and (11) reformation of contract.

            Now, Plaintiff seeks an order of assignment and restraining order.  

            The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

            Plaintiff seeks assignment of future rent payments from the real properties owned by the Defendant. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks a restraining order pursuant to which Defendant will be restrained from collecting any rent from his attached properties until the judgment is satisfied.

            The Court previously denied an identical request from Plaintiff, without prejudice, writing:

Plaintiff’s motion sets forth a number of properties which he is “informed and believes” are owned, in some part, by Defendant. However, noticeably absent from Plaintiff’s motion is any evidentiary support to corroborate those claims. Plaintiff did not cite any legal authority indicating that the Court may assign rent payments for properties which have only been connected to Defendant based on “information and belief.” To obtain the requested relief, Plaintiff, at minimum, must submit evidentiary support to establish that Defendant holds an ownership interest in the subject properties which is subject to CCP section 708.510. Moreover, Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities must contain substantive discussion showing that the requested orders are proper beyond a single citation to CCP section 708.510. (See CRC rule 3.113) (“The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.”)

            Now, Plaintiff sets forth substantive argument to show that a creditor may enforce a judgment by assignment of future rents from properties which the judgment debtor owns. More specifically, Plaintiff cites CCP section 708.510, which provides:

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:

….

(2) Rents.

            Moreover, Plaintiff cites the 1992 Legislative Committee Comment analyzing this provision to demonstrate that CCP section 708.510 provides for garnishment of future rents, not just past or present rents: “Paragraph (2) permits issuance of an order for the assignment of the right to payment of rent. Under former law, it was held that future rental installments could not be reached by garnishment. See Hustead v. Superior Court 2 Cal. App.3d 780, 785–87, 83 Cal. Rptr. 26 (1969).”

            Defendant did not oppose the motion, and thus has not set forth any authority to indicate that garnishment of future rents is improper.

            Plaintiff also submitted evidence to demonstrate that Defendant owns the following properties:

-         10826 WAGNER ST, CULVER CITY CA 90230

-         2007 OCEAN PARK BLVD, SANTA MONICA CA 90405

-         15122 EASTWOOD AVE, LAWNDALE CA 90260

-         14816 AVIS AVE, LAWNDALE CA 90260.

More specifically, Plaintiff submitted evidence—in the form of deeds and Defendant’s own testimony from the debtor examination—that Defendant is the sole owner of the first three properties, and is a 50% owner of the fourth property. (See Motion.)

Defendant did not oppose the motion and thus is considered to have conceded to the merits.

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for an order of assignment and restraining order is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.