Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: LAM08CH2973, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: LAM08CH2973    Hearing Date: November 20, 2024    Dept: 26

Rodriguez v. The Boys, LLC, et al.

REASSIGN JUDGMENT BACK TO ORIGINAL CREDITOR

(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 128(a)(4), 177, 187, 410.50)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Judgment Creditor James Rodriguez’s Motion for Order Reassigning Judgment is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff James Rodriguez (“Judgment Creditor”) filed the instant action for civil rights violations against Defendant The Boys, LLC (“Judgment Debtor”) on February 29, 2008. Default judgment was entered against Judgment Debtor on April 14, 2009. On September 29, 2008, Judgment Creditor filed a Notice of Case Assignment. Acknowledgment of Partial Satisfaction of Judgment was filed on August 22, 2011 and April 2, 2015. The judgment was renewed on October 24, 2018.

On September 16, 2024, Judgment Creditor filed the instant Motion for Order Reassigning Judgment. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

Judgment Creditor moves for an order reassigning the judgment in this case back to them from Ex Parte Collection Services, LLC, the Assignee of Record. The Motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(4), and sections 177, 187, and 410.50, which give the Court inherent equitable, statutory, and jurisdictional powers to enforce their judgments and compel obedience to their orders. (See Blueberry Properties, LLC v. Chow (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1020-1021.) Judgment Creditor assigned the judgment in this action to Judgment Assignee, which has since been suspended by the California Secretary of State for nonpayment of taxes. (Motion, Rodriguez Decl., Exhs. 1-2.) Despite multiple requests, Judgment Assignee refuses to reassign the judgment back to Judgment Creditor. (Id. at ¶6-8 and Exh. 3.) Judgment Creditor maintains an equitable interest in the judgment, despite assigning it to Judgment Assignee. (See Clark v. Andrews (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 193, 198-199.) Judgment Assignee’s failure to reassign the judgment back to Judgment Creditor is a breach of its fiduciary duty to Judgment Creditor. (See Cross v. Bonded Adjustment Bureau (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 266, 276-277 [citing Elam v. Arzaga (1932) 122 Cal.App. 742].) Accordingly, Judgment Creditor is entitled to an order reassigning the judgment back to them to pursue enforcement proceedings.

Conclusion

Judgment Creditor James Rodriguez’s Motion for Order Reassigning Judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.