Judge Michael D. Washington, Case Number: 37-2020-00025547-CU-FR-NC, Date: 2024-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael D. Washington, Case: 37-2020-00025547-CU-FR-NC, Date: 2024-04-22 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 21, 2024

03/22/2024 01:30:00 PM N-31 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael D Washington

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Fraud Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2020-00025547-CU-FR-NC MULLEN TECHNOLOGIES INC VS IHMUD [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Notice of Motion and Supporting Declarations, 02/14/2024

The Motion to Apply Rights Under Judgment to Satisfaction of Lien brought by cross-defendant Mullen Technologies Inc. (the Buyer) is DENIED as moot, but without prejudice to the Buyer utilizing the notice of lien procedure set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 708.410.

Background This case pertains to the sale of a car dealership. It is alleged that the seller, cross-complainant Ayman Haddadin (Mr. Haddadin), sold the dealership to the Buyer with the understanding that the Buyer would also be taking on the dealership's liabilities – specifically with respect to a number of specific vehicles that the dealership owned but still owed money on. It is also alleged that the Buyer emptied-out a bank account that was in the dealership's name. While emptying-out said bank account may not have been improper to the extent that the Buyer bought the dealership and the account in question appears to have been owned by the dealership, the point is that the seller, Mr. Haddadin, stayed on as an employee of the Buyer and, in running the business, expected to have access to that money to pay outstanding debts on certain vehicles in question. Based on this narrative, it is Mr. Haddadin's claim that he was never fully paid the agreed-upon price for the transfer of the dealership.

One of the parties who was owed money for one of those vehicles was Larry H. Miller Fleet/Lease (hereinafter, the Miller Company). The Miller Company filed an action in the State of Utah to collect on monies allegedly owed to it on one of those vehicles. Without the full record of the Utah case, this Court is unaware of who else may have been named in the Utah action, but, ultimately, it is admitted by Mr.

Haddadin that he defaulted in the Utah action because he 'ran out of money while defending himself.' That failure resulted in a default judgment against Mr. Haddadin and in favor of the Miller Company in the Utah action.

In the interim, it appears that the Buyer bought that debt from the Miller Company. As a result, the Buyer now claims that Mr. Haddadin is its judgment debtor because the Buyer now 'stands in the shoes' of the Miller Company in terms of enforcing the judgment out of Utah. Accordingly, the Buyer brough an action in San Diego Superior Court to have a California judgment entered against Mr. Haddadin based upon that Utah judgment. (ROA 368, Ex. A.) The Buyer now brings the instant motion under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 708.410-708.480 seeking 'an order applying the rights of judgment debtor... to money by creation of the instant lien to satisfaction in favor of judgment creditor...' (ROA 368, p. 2:5-7 (emphasis added).) Merits of Motion Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3091350 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: MULLEN TECHNOLOGIES INC VS IHMUD [IMAGED] 37-2020-00025547-CU-FR-NC It is not entirely clear what the Buyer is asking for – or even means – by seeking an order applying the rights of the Buyer to monies owed to Mr. Haddadin as a result of this litigation.

First, securing a judgment lien is a relatively simple procedure that does not require motion practice: Notice of lien procedure: To obtain the lien, the judgment creditor simply files in the pending action a notice of lien with an abstract or certified copy of the money judgment. (Ahart, Alan M., California Practice Guide: Enforcing Judgment and Debts (The Rutter Group, 2023) ¶ 6:1483, citing Code of Civil Procedure § 708.410(b), also citing Marriage of Kerr (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 130, 133.) No motion practice is needed to 'simply file' a notice of lien in this case with an abstract of judgment or a certified copy of the money judgment. The Buyer can do that without a court order.

Second, to the extent that the statutes the Buyer is invoking here do require motion practice, it is generally required post-judgment: (a) If the judgment debtor is entitled to money or property under the judgment in the action or special proceeding and a lien created under this article exists, upon application of any party to the action or special proceeding, the court may order that the judgment debtor's rights to money or property under the judgment be applied to the satisfaction of the lien created under this article as ordered by the court.

Application for an order under this section shall be on noticed motion. The notice of motion shall be served on all other parties. Service shall be made personally or by mail. (Code of Civil Procedure § 408.470(a) (emphasis added).) While motion practice would be required to 'apply' any monies won by Mr. Haddadin in the instant action to pay off debts he owes as a judgment debtor, such an order would require a 'judgment in the action' – i.e. in the instant action. Right now, Mr. Haddadin has not won anything by way of this lawsuit as the case is still pending and has not proceeded to trial, verdict, or judgment. As such, at least under the precise terms of Code of Civil Procedure § 408.470, this Court cannot enter an order that unknown monies that may be won at trial must be applied to satisfy the sister-state judgment from Utah.

Nonetheless, the Court is mindful that this is a hard-fought case with several years of litigation history and with multiple other related lawsuits. To the extent that trial of this matter is set for April 19, 2024, were it helpful to the parties in reaching resolution via settlement or compromise, the Court would consider a stipulation by both parties to put the legal issue before this Court. In other words, the Court notes that Mr. Haddadin represents in his opposition brief that the instant motion must be denied 'at least until the parties' claims are adjudicated at trial' and that 'Mr. Haddadin intends to challenge the validity of the assignment of the judgment because the assignment is void as a matter of public policy.' (ROA 380, p. 6:9-10 and 6:17-18.) To the extent that enforcement of the sister state judgment is binary (either it is enforceable or it is not), with an amount of $92,180.50 plus interest at stake between the parties, if resolution of the question of whether that judgment is invalid as a matter of public policy might prevent the considerable time and expense required to try this case if the parties are otherwise able to assess the strengths and weaknesses of their claims, the Court would consider setting such a motion (to be brought with Mr. Haddadin as the moving party seeking to attack the validity of the Judgment on Sister-State Judgment) to be set on relatively shortened notice and heard on Friday, April 19, 2024 (which is the trial date), with moving papers due Friday, March 29, 2024, opposition papers due Friday, April 5, 2024, and reply papers due Friday, April 12, 2024.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3091350