Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: PC056453, Date: 2024-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: PC056453    Hearing Date: November 22, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 11/22/24

Case #PC056453

MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT

Motion filed on 9/5/24.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Alex Woltman

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Valencia Gateway Retail IV, LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff Valencia Gateway Retail IV, LLC to provide a Satisfaction of Judgment in this action.

RULING: The hearing will be continued. 

This action arose out of a breach of a lease agreement.  Defendant AMA Corp. (AMA) leased property from the Plaintiff Valencia Gateway Retail IV, LLC (Plaintiff) pursuant to a written contract.  AMA defaulted on the lease and failed to pay rent.  Defendant Alex Woltman (Woltman) is one of three individuals who provided a personal guarantee of the lease.  The guarantors were not parties to the lease agreement.  The guarantors’ guarantee was in a separate written agreement entitled Lease Guaranty (the Guaranty).  (See Woltman (unsigned) Decl., Ex.7).    Plaintiff sued to recover the unpaid rent.  The Court entered judgment on 12/22/17 following a bench trial.  (Id, Ex.1). 

The total judgment against AMA was $247,637.76.  Each of the guarantors, including Woltman, was ordered to pay $31,933.94.  On 3/26/18, the Court ordered that Plaintiff and cross-defendant was determined to be the prevailing party for purposes of an award of attorney's fees and reasonable attorney's fees were determined to be in the sum of $30‚365.00.  (Hurey Decl., Ex.2). 

On or about, 4/24/24, Woltman delivered a cashier’s check to Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $38,628.86 for his portion of the Judgment.  (Hurey Decl., Ex.3, 4).  On 6/4/24, Plaintiff’s counsel returned the check.  (Id., Ex.5).  On 9/3/24, Woltman’s counsel re-sent the check to Plaintiff’s counsel and demanded that Plaintiff file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment.  (Id., Ex.6).      

On 9/5/24, Woltman filed and served the instant motion.  The proof of service for the motion is unclear.  The proof of service states that the motion was served on Plaintiff’s counsel “by placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows” and then lists the mailing address for Plaintiff’s counsel and an email address.  (See Motion, p.8).  However, service by United States Mail is not marked in the proof of service.  Id.  Rather, service Via Email is marked.  Id.  There is no email address for Plaintiff’s counsel in eCourt and the email address where the motion was sent, erniep@bewleylaw.com, does not match the email address listed on the documents filed by Plaintiff’s counsel, ernie.park@bewleylaw.com.

Additionally, the motion was originally scheduled for hearing on 2/25/25.  The 9/6/24 Minute Order (from Department F43) indicates that the hearing on this motion is continued to 11/22/24 and Plaintiff was ordered to give notice.  (See 9/6/24 Minute Order, p.1).  It is not clear if the Court intended to advance and continue the 2/25/25 hearing on the instant motion or to only continue the Judgment Debtor Examinations which took place on 9/6/24. 

Plaintiff did not file a Notice of Ruling regarding the 9/6/24 ruling as ordered.  On 11/19/24, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration re judgment debtor examination of Judgment Debtor Alexander Woltman which lists 11/22/24 as the hearing date for the judgment debtor examination with no mention of the instant motion.  As such, it appears that Plaintiff believes that only the Judgment Debtor Examination is proceeding on 11/22/24 and/or did not receive the instant motion. 

Based on the declaration of Plaintiff’s attorney, it is clear that Plaintiff opposes the relief requested in the Motion for Satisfaction of Judgment.  Due to the issues noted above, the hearing on the Motion for Satisfaction of Judgment will be continued.  Woltman’s counsel is ordered to serve the motion on Plaintiff’s counsel’s correct email address which will be confirmed at the hearing.  The continuance will allow Plaintiff to file and serve a complete opposition to the motion and allow Woltman to file and serve a reply thereto.  The opposition is due to be filed and served at least 9 court days before the continued hearing date and the reply is due to be filed and served at least 5 court days before the continued hearing date.