Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 23STCV25663, Date: 2024-08-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV25663 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: 45
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
|
WESCO
INSURANCE COMPANY; vs. |
Case No. BC |
|
|
|
|
Department 45 |
|
|
|
|
|
[Tentative] Order |
|
|
|
|
|
Action Filed: 10/20/23 |
|
|
Judgment Entered: 1/30/24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing Date: August 21, 2024
Moving
Responding
Motion for Assignment Order re: Rights to Payment of Money Due or to
Become Due (Payment Rights From Health Insurance Providers)
The court has
considered the moving papers. No opposition was received.
The court GRANTS the motion for assignment order.
On October 20,
2023, Plaintiff Wesco Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against
Defendants The Wright Home Care Inc. (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, asserting two (2) causes of action for breach of contract,
concerning (1) workers’ compensation Insurance Policy No. WWC3405519, issued for
the period of February 9, 2019, through February 9, 2020 (the “2019 Policy”),
and (2) workers’ Insurance Policy No. WWC3460278, issue for February 9, 2020,
through February 9, 2021, but canceled on August 3, 2020 (the “2020 Policy”).
The Complaint
alleges the following. Plaintiff provided Defendant with those two workers’
compensation insurance policies. (Compl., ¶¶ 8, 14.) Plaintiff performed all of
its obligations under those insurance policies. (Compl., ¶¶ 10, 16.) However,
Defendant breached the policies by failing to pay the premiums in full.
(Compl., ¶¶ 11, 17.) As a result of Defendant’s breach of the 2019 Policy,
Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of $62,599.00, together with
prejudgment interest of $17.14 per day from April 2, 2020, using the legal rate
of 10% per annum. (Compl., ¶ 12.) For breach of the 2020 Policy, Plaintiff
seeks damages of $10,189.00, together with prejudgment interest of $2.79 per
day from October 19, 2023, using the legal rate of I0% per annum. (Compl., ¶ 18.)
On January 25,
2024, default was entered against Defendant.
On January 30,
2024, a clerk’s judgment was entered against Defendant in the amount of
$97,497.44, consisting of $72,788 in damages, prejudgment interest of
$24,149.44, and costs of $560.
On April 22, 2024,
a Writ of Execution was issued.
On May 9, 2024,
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Assignment Order re: Rights to Payment
of Money Due or to Become Due.
On August 9, 2024,
Plaintiff filed a reply in support of the motion even though no opposition has
been filed.
Legal Standard
CCP “section
708.510, … is part of the Enforcement of Judgments Law. For purposes of the
Enforcement of Judgments Law, a judgment creditor is someone ‘in whose favor a
judgment is rendered.’ (See § 680.240.)” (Luxury Asset Lending, LLC v.
Philadelphia Television Network, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 894, 914.)
CCP § 708.510(a) states,
in relevant part: “(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, upon application of
the judgment creditor on noticed motion, the court may order the judgment
debtor to assign to the judgment creditor … all or part of a right to payment
due or to become due, whether or not the right is conditioned on future
developments, including but not limited to the following types of payments: (1)
Wages dues from the federal government that are not subject to withholding
under an earnings withholding order. (2) Rents. (3) Commissions. (4) Royalties.
(5) Payments due from a patent or copyright. (6) Insurance policy loan value.”
“[I]n determining
whether to order an assignment or the amount of an assignment pursuant to
subdivision (a), the court may take into consideration all relevant factors,
including the following: (1) The reasonable requirements of a judgment debtor
who is a natural person and of persons supported in whole or in part by the judgment
debtor. (2) Payments the judgment debtor is required to make or that are
deducted in satisfaction of other judgments and wage assignments, including
earnings assignment orders for support. (3) The amount remaining due on the
money judgment. (4) The amount being or to be received in satisfaction of the
right to payment that may be assigned.” (CCP § 708.510(c).)
As an
initial matter, Plaintiff seeks judicial notice of (1) the judgment of
$97,497.44 entered against Defendant in this case, and (2) a Department of
Social Services webpage, showing that Defendant “engages in business operations
as an home care services provider under California Department of Social
Services Licensed Facility No. 194700431, NPI 1639610264 (6060 W Manchester
Ave, Ste 315, Los Angeles, CA 90045).” (Motion, Request for Judicial Notice, p.
1; Exhibits A and B.)
The
unopposed request for judicial notice is granted. (Evid. Code, § 452, subds
(c), (d), and (h).)
The motion seeks an order assigning Plaintiff
the following. “Rights to payment of money due or to become due from
[Defendant’s] business operations as an home care services provider under
California Department of Social Services Licensed Facility No. 194700431, NPI
1639610264 (6060 W Manchester Ave, Ste 315, Los Angeles, CA 90045), whether
derived from Medicare, Medicaid, Medi-Cal, Aetna Medicare, Alignment Health
Plan, Anthem Blue Cross, Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Co.,
Anthem Blue Cross Partnership Plan, Aspire Health, Astiva Health, Blue Shield
of California, Brand New Day, CCA Health California, CCHP (Chinese Community
Health Plan), Central Health Medicare Plan, Clever Care Health Plan, Humana,
Imperial Health Plan of California Inc., Kaiser Permanente, Molina Healthcare
of California, Providence Medicare Advantage Plans, SCAN Health Plan, Sharp
Health Plan, UnitedHealthcare, Wellcare, Wellcare by Health Net, Western Health
Advantage, or any other private or public payor …” to the extent necessary to
satisfy the judgment entered in this action in full. (Notice of Motion, p.
3:1-11; Motion, pp. 9:6-10:3.)
Plaintiff’s counsel attests to the
following facts in support of the motion. Defendant has not made any effort to
satisfy the judgment. (Motion, Declaration of Timothy Carl Aires (“Aires
Decl.”), ¶ 4.) Defendant operates a home care service business. (Aires Decl., ¶
6.) The organizations or entities listed above reimburse home care service
providers for services in home care settings. (Aires Decl., ¶ 7.)
The court finds that the income Defendant
receives from its home care services is an appropriate right to payment that
may be assigned to Plaintiff. Defendant has not filed any opposition disputing
the motion or Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendant has failed to make any
payments towards the judgment.
Accordingly, the motion for assignment order is GRANTED.
It is so
ordered.
Date:
______________________
Mel RED recana
Judge of the Superior
Court