Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 19STCP02333, Date: 2023-10-02 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

Brooks v. Explorer 1 Ambulance & Medical Services, LLC, et al.

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

(CCP § 708.170)

Judgment Assignee Creative Recovery Concepts, Inc.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is DENIED.

On January 11, 2019, the Court entered judgment in favor of Petitioner Corey Brooks (“Petitioner”) and against Respondent Explorer 1 Ambulance and Medical Services, LLC (“Respondent”) pursuant to an Order, Decision, or Award of the Labor Commissioner.

On January 7, 2021, Petitioner filed a Notice of Assignment of Judgment, naming Creative Recovery Concepts, Inc. (“Judgment Assignee”) as Assignee of Record. On August 5, 2021, Judgment Assignee filed an Application and Order for Appearance and Examination, which was set for hearing on February 7, 2022. On February 7, 2022, counsel for Respondent appeared and indicated that a Motion to Quash had been filed. (Minute Order, 02/07/22.) The Court continued the hearing on the second Application and Order for Appearance and Examination to May 24, 2022. (Ibid.) Respondent filed a Motion to Quash Service of the second Application and Order for Appearance and Examination on the same date, which the Court denied on September 1, 2022. (Minute Order, 09/01/22.)

The Order for Appearance and Examination was reset for December 15, 2022, at which time Judgment Debtor did not appear. (Minute Order, 12/15/22.) The Court held the bench warrant for appearance and continued the matter to February 16, 2023. (Ibid.) On February 16, 2023, the parties announced that a settlement had been reached and the Court continued the Order for Appearance and Examination to July 17, 2023. (Minute Order, 02/16/23.)

Judgment Debtor appeared on July 17, 2023 and after Judgment Assignee indicated that there was no settlement, the Order for Appearance and Examination went forward. The matter was continued to August 30, 2023 to allow Judgment Debtor to bring the documents set forth in the Subpoena Duces Tecum served with the Application for Order for Appearance and Examination. (Minute Order, 07/17/23.) On August 16, 2023, Judgment Assignee filed the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees. T.) Judgment Debtor filed an opposition declaration on October 2, 2023. The Motion also initially came for hearing on October 2, 2023 and was continued to November 22, 20323. (Minute Order, 11/22/23.)

The Motion for Attorney’s Fees is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 708.170 but does not specify under which subdivision. (Motion, p. 1:18-20.) Subdivision (a)(2) states in relevant part: “If the person’s failure to appear is without good cause, the judgment creditor shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the examination proceeding. Attorney's fees awarded against the judgment debtor shall be added to and become part of the principal amount of the judgment.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.170, subd, (a)(2).)

Judgment Assignee moves for attorney’s fees incurred as a result of spending four hours at the hearing on July 17, 2023 due to various failed motions and lengthy discussions by Judgment Debtor’s attorney. (Motion, Love Decl., p. 2:15-25.) Despite all the time spent, Judgment Assignee argues that the hearing was a waste of time due to Judgment Debtor’s failure to bring the subpoenaed documents. (Ibid.) It is unclear to the Court that attorney’s fees can be awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 708.170, subdivision (a)(2) where the judgment debtor appears at the Order for Appearance and Examination. This statute only refers to fees for failure to appear. Without further authority showing that Judgment Assignee is entitled to fees for Judgment Debtor’s failure to comply with the production of document pursuant to the subpoena duces tecum, the request is denied.

Judgment Assignee Creative Recovery Concepts, Inc.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is DENIED.