Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 24STCP03406, Date: 2025-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP03406    Hearing Date: February 13, 2025    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:     February 13, 2025                             TRIAL DATE:  N/A

CASE:                         Mark Letourneau, et al. v. Law Offices of Richard M. Lester, et al.

CASE NO.:                 24STCP03406

JOINT MOTION OF ALL JUDGMENT DEBTORS FOR STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF SISTER-STATE JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL ON KANSAS STATE COURT JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Judgment Debtors Law Offices of Richard M. Lester, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY:     Assignee Eugene Kim

I.          INTRODUCTION

            This is a sister-state judgment enforcement case.  On June 8, 2024, Mark LeTourneau and Deborah LeTourneau (“Judgment Creditors”) obtained a judgment of $3,563,832.88 against Richard M. Lester and Michael K. DeKruif (“Judgment Debtors”) in the sister-state court of Kansas.

            On July 8, 2024, Judgment Debtors filed a Notice of Appeal of the Kansas Judgment.  That appeal is pending in the Court of Appeals of the State of Kansas.

            On August 28, 2024, Judgment Debtors assigned the Kansas Judgment to Eugene Kim (“Assignee”).

On October 18, 2024, Assignee filed an Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment in this court. 

On October 23, 2024, a Judgment Based on Sister-State Judgment was entered.

            On December 18, 2024, Judgment Debtors, including the Law Offices of Richard M. Lester, filed this Joint Motion of all Judgment Debtors for Stay of Enforcement of Sister-State Judgment Pending Appeal on Kansas State Court Judgment.

            On January 8, 2025, Assignee filed an opposition.  Assignee is self-represented.

            On February 5, 2025, Judgment Debtors replied. 

II.        JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Judgment Debtors’ unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (a), (d).)

III.       DISCUSSION

            Judgment Debtors move for an order staying this action without posting a supersedeas bond because (1) their appeal of the Kansas Judgment is currently pending, and (2) Judgment Debtors are unable to secure a supersedeas bond.

            Pursuant to the stay of enforcement of a sister-state judgment statute, a stay is warranted.   Code of Civil Procedure section 1710.50 provides, in pertinent part:

(a) The court shall grant a stay of enforcement where:

(1) An appeal from the sister state judgment is pending or may be taken in the state which originally rendered the judgment. Under this paragraph, enforcement shall be stayed until the proceedings on appeal have been concluded or the time for appeal has expired.

…

(5) Any other circumstance exists where the interests of justice require a stay of enforcement.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1710.50, subd. (a)(1) & (5).)

            Here, it is undisputed that Judgment Debtors’ appeal of the Kansas Judgment is currently pending in the sister state of Kansas. (See Request for Judicial Notice (RJN), 12.)  As such, a stay is mandatory.

            The real dispute lies with Judgment Debtors’ second request: whether enforcement of the Kansas Judgment should be stayed without requiring Judgment Debtors’ to post a bond. Judgment Debtors argue the statute allows the court to stay enforcement with or without requiring an undertaking. 

            The statute states, in pertinent part:

(c) The court shall grant a stay of enforcement under this section on such terms and conditions as are just including but not limited to the following:

(1) The court may require an undertaking in an amount it determines to be just, but the amount of the undertaking shall not exceed double the amount of the judgment creditor's claim.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1710.50, subd. (c)(1).)

            The court agrees with Judgment Debtors’ interpretation.  As the language suggests, the court may grant a stay of enforcement “on such terms and conditions as are just.”  Further, Judgment Debtors detail their unsuccessful efforts to obtain a bond to stay enforcement of the Kansas Judgment during the pendency of their appeal.  (See Mot., pp. 6:1-7:15.)  Judgment Debtors propose an alternative.  They state that Judgment Debtor Richard M. Lester is “prepared to stipulate to a preliminary injunction prohibiting him from selling or otherwise encumbering the Lester Residence pending the earlier of a reversal ruling on the Appeal or further order of this Court.”  (Mot., p. 13:14-16.) 

            The court accepts Judgment Debtors’ proposal.  A stipulated preliminary injunction is a just term or condition. 

            Assignee advances numerous arguments in opposition.  The arguments rely on inaccurate statements or inapposite citations to case law and statutes.  Assignee’s arguments are rejected for the reasons stated in Judgment Debtors’ reply.

IV.       CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, the motion to stay is GRANTED.  Enforcement of the Kansas Judgment is stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in the underlying action.  The court sets a Status Conference re: Appeal in Kansas Court of Appeals for June 13, 2025 at 9:00 a.m.

Judgment Debtors are directed to file a proposed preliminary injunction within 5 court days of this order.  The parties are directed to work together regarding the language of the preliminary injunction.  In the event, the parties cannot agree on the operative language,  Judgment Creditors may file any objections to the language of the preliminary injunctions within 5 courts days after the proposed order is filed and served.  If no objection is filed within five court days of service, the court will issue the preliminary injunction.  If an objection is filed, the court sets a hearing date to resolve the issues for March 20, 2025, at 8:30 am. 

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   February 13, 2025