Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: BC700148, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC700148    Hearing Date: September 12, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

ATI’s motion to approve stipulation or satisfy lien is GRANTED as to the request to satisfy the lien, but DENIED as to the request to approve the stipulation.

On 3/1/2017, American Technologies, Inc. (ATI) initiated this action against Carolyn Lowd Daniels and Bleaker Daniels (collectively, the Daniels). The complaint is for 1) breach of contract; 2) common count; 3) violation of civil code § 8800; and 4) foreclosure of mechanic lien. 

On 11/17/2017, Cross-Complainants the Daniels filed a Cross-Complaint. On January 26, 2018, Cross-Complainants filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint against ATI, Clinton Monfort, Jehovany Berraza, TBG Construction Company (TBG), Tiara Imperial Homeowners Association, U.S.A.A. Insurance, and Mercury Insurance Group. 

            Now, ATI moves for Court approval of its Stipulation with Monfort, or alternatively to enforce ATI’s lien against Monfort.

Discussion

            On February 24, 2023, the court entered its Second Amended Judgment (SAJ). Per the SAJ, ATI was awarded a money judgment against the Daniels in the amount of $424,102.08, jointly and severally. The SAJ also awarded the Daniels a money judgment in the amount of $41,034.36 against Monfort.

Accordingly, under the SAJ, Monfort owes the Daniels $41,034.36, and the Daniels owe ATI the amount of $424,102.08.

On March 27, 2023, ATI filed a Second Amended Notice of Lien on Pending Action and Judgment pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 708.410, pursuant to which ATI gave notice of its lien on the pending action and judgment of the Daniels against Monfort.

Subsequently, Monfort and ATI enter into a Stipulation whereby Monfort would satisfy his obligation to the Daniels by paying ATI $41,034.36, a partial amount of the judgment debt owed by the Daniels to ATI, thereby reducing the judgment debt amount owed by the Daniels to ATI pursuant to the SAJ and extinguishing Monfort’s liability to the Daniels.

On July 25, 2023, the Court entered a Minute Order denying the Stipulation and ruling that the Stipulation should be resubmitted with the Daniels’ signatures, if at all.

ATI now seeks for the entry of the Stipulation allowing Monfort to pay $41,034.36 that it owes to the Daniels, and discharge his liability. Monfort claims that he is uncomfortable issuing payment without some Court imprimatur, approval, and/or confirmation that doing so will discharge Monfort’s debt obligations to the Daniels, because ATI and Monfort suspect that the Daniels may not be willing to voluntarily remit to ATI any funds received from Monfort.  

In opposition, the Daniels reiterate their position that they will not sign the stipulation. However, strangely, they do not fundamentally respond to the merits of ATI’s motion, and offer no substantive argument to explain why Monfort cannot or should not be able to discharge his liability. Instead, the Daniels cite case law which addresses the award of attorney fees and attorney liens not at issue here.

After review, the Court is persuaded that the fundamental relief sought by ATI/Monfort, i.e., that Monfort should be able to discharge his liability by paying the $41,034.36 sum he owes, should be granted. However, absent from ATI’s brief is persuasive case law which could show that the stipulation presented can be granted without the Daniels’ signatures. Accordingly, the Court is unpersuaded that a stipulation is the proper avenue for the providing the relief sought.

 However, as noted by ATI, under California law, a judgment creditor “may obtain a lien” on a judgment debtor’s rights “to money or property under any judgment subsequently procured in” a pending action. (CCP § 708.410(a).) If the judgment creditor files a noticed motion, served on all other parties either personally or by mail, the court in the pending action “may order that the judgment debtor’s rights to money or property under the judgment be applied to the satisfaction of the lien.” (Ibid.) The Court’s decision is discretionary and based on “all the relevant circumstances.” (See Brown v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 320, 334 [citation omitted].)

As such, the Court can achieve the same result sought here without relying on the stipulation. The Court grants ATI’s request to enforce ATI’s lien by ordering Monfort to partially satisfy ATI’s judgment by paying ATI the amount of $41,034.36 in partial satisfaction of ATI’s judgment against the Daniels, thereby discharging Monfort’s liability to the Daniels.

Based on the foregoing, ATI’s motion to approve stipulation or satisfy lien is granted as to the request to satisfy the lien, but denied as to the request to approve the stipulation.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  September    , 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.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.