Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STCP01505, Date: 2024-06-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP01505    Hearing Date: June 17, 2024    Dept: 26

Reed, et al. v. Gilerman, et al.

MOTION TO STAY ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT

(CCP §§ 1032, 1033.5; B&P § 6203 et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioners Zshonette Reed, Esq. and Law Offices of Lorden & Reed’s Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On April 26, 2022, Petitioners Zshonette Reed, Esq. and Law Offices of Lorden & Reed (“Petitioners”) filed the instant Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award against Respondents Erina Gilerman (“Respondent Gilerman”) and Alexander Gudis (“Respondent Gudis”). Respondents filed an opposition on June 1, 2022, then filed an Amended Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award and Opposition to Vacate the Award on August 15, 2022. On February 9, 2023, the Court entered judgment in favor of Respondents confirming the arbitration award. (Judgment, 02/09/23.) The judgment provided that costs are to be awarded per memorandum of costs and attorney’s fees are to be awarded per noticed motion. On June 15, 2023, the Court granted Respondents’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs. (Minute Order, 06/14/23.)

On April 2, 2024, Petitioners filed the instant Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment. Respondent Gilerman filed an opposition on May 31, 2024 and Petitioners replied on June 11, 2024.

Discussion

The instant Motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 918.5, which states: “The trial court may, in its discretion, stay the enforcement of a judgment or order if the judgment debtor has another action pending on a disputed claim against the judgment creditor.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 918.5, subd. (a).) Petitioners point to the federal action United States v. Alexander Gudis, Case No. 3:99-CR-019-13 (N.D. Tex.), in which a judgment of $8,717,912.01 was issued against Respondent Gudis. (Motion, Reed Decl., ¶¶4-6.) Petitioners were contacted by the Assistant United States Attorney in the federal action with a garnishment order and instructed to file an answer of garnishee. (Id. at ¶6 and Exh. A.)

Respondent Gilerman argues that the express language of section 918.5 does not apply to the circumstances of this case because the federal action was not brought by Respondent Gudis against Petitioners. In reply, Petitioners contend the section should apply because they are parties to the garnishment proceedings and the amount of the federal judgment far exceeds the judgment in this action. The Court agrees that by its express language, section 918.5 does not apply to the facts of this case. That statute was written to stay enforcement where there is another pending action between the same parties based on a claim by the defendant against the plaintiff. Petitioners and Respondent Gudis are not in an adversarial posture in the federal action. Instead, it is that the federal government appears to make a claim to the funds in Petitioners’ possession to which Respondents are entitled pursuant to the judgment in this court. Therefore, it does not appear that the Court has the authority to stay enforcement of the judgment in this action under Code of Civil Procedure section 918.5.

The writ of garnishment issued in the federal case states in relevant part:

You must retain any nonexempt property in your possession until further order of the court, and you can be held responsible for failure to withhold such property in accordance with the law (a list of the property exempt from garnishment is provided in the enclosed Clerk’s Notice). To assist in identification of property for withholding and disclosure, the defendant judgment debtor’s SSN is ***-**-1423 and birth year is 1957.

Please withhold all nonexempt property until further notice, but do not disburse the withholdings to anyone until you receive a court order to do so. You will be notified when a final order of garnishment is entered.

(Motion, Reed Decl., Exh. A, p. 1.) Attached to the writ of garnishment is the federal government’s ex parte application for the same, which explains that “Upon entry of judgment, a federal tax-type lien arose against all of the defendant’s property and rights to property. See 18 U.S.C. § 3613(c); United States v. Loftis, 607 F.3d 173, 179 n.7 (5th Cir. 2010).” (Id. at Exh. A, p. 9 at ¶6.) The Motion, however, does not provide authority regarding enforcing the writ of garnishment obtained by the federal government in a state court action.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Petitioners Zshonette Reed, Esq. and Law Offices of Lorden & Reed’s Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.