Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: BC637442, Date: 2023-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC637442    Hearing Date: April 10, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 10, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Appoint Receiver to Enforce Judgment

Moving Party: Plaintiff Vanowen Real Estate Partners

Responding Party: Defendants Global Alarm Protection, Inc., Lali Fizli and Maritza Aguilar

T/R:    PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS DENIED.

            PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

            The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

            A receiver may be appointed by the Court in which an action or proceeding is pending after judgment, to carry the judgment into effect. (CCP § 564(b)(3).)

            Plaintiff moves for an order appointing a receiver to exercise control over a potential settlement in a Texas action in which Defendants are the Plaintiffs. Plaintiff asserts the Texas action is Defendants’ only asset and Texas does not allow judgment creditors to create a lien against the settlement. Plaintiff argues that appointment of a receiver is necessary to ensure Defendants pay the judgment owed to Plaintiff in this action. Plaintiff alternatively asks the Court to issue an injunction preventing Defendants from spending any settlement proceeds. In opposition, Defendants assert the Texas action is almost settled and this motion is moot. Defendants represent they will pay any judgment upon conclusion of the appeals in this action.

            The Court finds that appointment of a receiver in these circumstances, and the injunction Plaintiff seeks, are inappropriate. Plaintiff seeks an order which would empower a receiver appointed in this case (or permit the Court itself) to become involved in a lawsuit in another state with parties not before this Court. The Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff’s inability to file a judgment lien in Texas justifies this extreme and intrusive remedy.

            Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.