Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case BC453138 2022-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Full Satisfaction of Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

On January 18, 2011, Plaintiff Kavoos Rostami, d.b.a. K.R. Floral, filed his Complaint against Defendant John Andrade, a.k.a. Sunland Flowers, a.k.a. Best Trade Flower, and Defendants Does 1 through 25 on causes of action relating to the failure to pay a book account for the sale of flowers. Plaintiff prayed for the principal sum of $55,073.60, interest at the statutory rate beginning June 24, 2005, costs of suit, and attorney fees.

On June 9, 2011, the Clerk’s Office entered default against Defendant John Andrade.

On August 15, 2011, per Plaintiff’s request, the Court dismissed Defendants Does 1 through 25. On that same day, the Court entered default judgment against Defendant Andrade in the amount of $89,304.44. This comprised of $55,073.60 in damages, $32,835.84 in prejudgment interest at the annual rate of 10%, $395.00 in costs, and $1,000.00 in attorney’s fees.

On October 20, 2011, the Court denied without prejudice Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Default Judgment. The Court found that there was no evidence to support the motion.

On June 12, 2012, the Court denied with prejudice Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Default and Default Judgment. The Court found that the motion was untimely.

On March 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Application for and Renewal of Judgment. Plaintiff applied for a renewed judgment of $174,788.22. This comprised of $89,304.44 from the original judgment, $85,438.78 in interest after judgment, and $45.00 in costs.

On December 29, 2021, the Clerk’s Office issued a Writ of Execution in this matter for a total amount due of $174,828.22.

On July 13, 2022, Defendant filed his Motion to Compel Full Satisfaction of Judgment, and for Attorney’s Fees and Damages in the Amount of $4,100, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Declarations, Exhibits (“Motion to Compel Full Satisfaction of Judgment”). Defendant avers: (1) that the money judgment has been satisfied; (2) that Defendant sent Plaintiff a written demand that he acknowledge satisfaction of the judgment; (3) that Plaintiff did not do so; (4) that Plaintiff did not have just cause for failing to comply; (5) that the Court is authorized to grant a motion to compel acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment; (6) that Defendant has suffered actual damages, including denial of loans and payments of higher interest rates; and (7) that Defendant has suffered $100 in statutory damages and paid $4,000 in attorney’s fees in connection with this motion.

On August 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed his initial Opposition. The Opposition only objected upon defective notice. Due to this initial Opposition, the parties agreed to rescheduling the hearing from August 15, 2022 to September 16, 2022.

On August 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed his subsequent Opposition, which substantively objected to Defendant’s Motion. Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the motion based on arguments that: (1) Defendant has not met his burden of proof regarding his allegations; (2) Defendant does not provide information on multiple points, such as who is “Besttrade Flower”, how is that organization related to Defendant, and why there is no mention of the alleged satisfaction in the January 13, 2013 letter provided by Defendant; (3) Plaintiff believes that Defendant has forged Plaintiff’s signature; and (4) the declaration in support of Defendant by Nataly de la Bastida is vague and hearsay.

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of Plaintiff’s Summary of Case in Support of Court Judgment, filed August 15, 2011 in this case. The document is attached to Plaintiff’s Opposition and marked as Exhibit No. 1.

Plaintiff is basically requesting that the court judicially notice the truth of his summary of the case. This the Court cannot do. “While courts may notice official acts and public records, we do not take judicial notice of the truth of all matters stated therein.” (Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063 [internal quotations omitted].)

The Court rules on Plaintiff’s Objections to the Declaration of John Andrade as follows:

Objection
1	SUSTAINED
2		OVERRULED
3	SUSTAINED
4		OVERRULED
5	SUSTAINED
6	SUSTAINED

(a) A money judgment may be satisfied by payment of the full amount required to satisfy the judgment or by acceptance by the judgment creditor of a lesser sum in full satisfaction of the judgment.

(b) Where a money judgment is satisfied by levy, the obligation of the judgment creditor to give or file an acknowledgment of satisfaction arises only when the judgment creditor has received the full amount required to satisfy the judgment from the levying officer.

(c) Where a money judgment is satisfied by payment to the judgment creditor by check or other form of noncash payment that is to be honored upon presentation by the judgment creditor for payment, the obligation of the judgment creditor to give or file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment arises only when the check or other form of noncash payment has actually been honored upon presentation for payment.

(a) If a money judgment has been satisfied, the judgment debtor, the owner of real or personal property subject to a judgment lien created under the judgment, or a person having a security interest in or a lien on personal property subject to a judgment lien created under the judgment may serve personally or by mail on the judgment creditor a demand in writing that the judgment creditor do one or both of the following:

(2) Execute, acknowledge, and deliver an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment to the person who made the demand.

(b) The demand shall include the following statement: “Important warning. If this judgment has been satisfied, the law requires that you comply with this demand not later than 15 days after you receive it. If a court proceeding is necessary to compel you to comply with this demand, you will be required to pay my reasonable attorney’s fees in the proceeding if the court determines that the judgment has been satisfied and that you failed to comply with the demand. In addition, if the court determines that you failed without just cause to comply with this demand within the 15 days allowed, you will be liable for all damages I sustain by reason of such failure and will also forfeit one hundred dollars to me.”

(c) If the judgment has been satisfied, the judgment creditor shall comply with the demand not later than 15 days after actual receipt of the demand.

(d) If the judgment creditor does not comply with the demand within the time allowed, the person making the demand may apply to the court on noticed motion for an order requiring the judgment creditor to comply with the demand. The notice of motion shall be served on the judgment creditor. Service shall be made personally or by mail. If the court determines that the judgment has been satisfied and that the judgment creditor has not complied with the demand, the court shall either (1) order the judgment creditor to comply with the demand or (2) order the court clerk to enter satisfaction of the judgment.

(e) If the judgment has been satisfied and the judgment creditor fails without just cause to comply with the demand within the time allowed, the judgment creditor is liable to the person who made the demand for all damages sustained by reason of such failure and shall also forfeit one hundred dollars ($100) to such person. Liability under this subdivision may be determined in the proceedings on the motion pursuant to subdivision (d) or in an action.

In an action or proceeding maintained pursuant to this chapter, the court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. (Code Civ. Proc, § 724.080.)

“A court may order entry of satisfaction of judgment whenever a judgment is satisfied in fact.” (George S. Nolte Consulting Civil Engineers, Inc. v. Magliocco (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 190, 193.) “Although section 724.050 does not expressly state satisfaction of the judgment must be shown ‘in fact’ we conclude a reasonable reading of the section requires the trial court find actual satisfaction of the judgment.” (Pierson v. Honda (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1411, fn. 4.)

“Except as otherwise provided by law, a party has the burden of proof as to each fact the existence or nonexistence of which is essential to the claim for relief or defense that he is asserting.” (Evid. Code., § 500.)

“In a civil case the party with the burden of proof must convince the trier of fact that its version of a fact is more likely than not the true version. Stated another way, it requires the burdened party ‘to convince the trier of fact that the existence of a particular fact is more probable than its nonexistence--a degree of proof usually described as proof by a preponderance of the evidence.’” (Beck Development Co. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1205 (quoting Cal. Law Revision Com. com., 29B pt. 1 West’s Ann. Evid. Code (1995) § 500, p. 553).)

Defendant has not met his burden of proof to demonstrate that there has been actual satisfaction of the judgment. Defendant fails to meet his burden for multiple reasons.

First, due to evidentiary issues with his filings, Defendant has not submitted sufficient admissible evidence on this motion. These issues include: (1) Defendant failing to properly sign his own affidavit (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.257(b)(1)); (2) both Defendant and his declarant (Nataly de la Bastida) failing to substantially comply with proper procedure (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5); and (3) a lack of foundation for the letter dated January 13, 2013, which Defendant claims is evidence that the parties had an agreement that could lead to satisfaction of the judgment (Mot., Ex. 1, p. 1; Evid. Code, § 403).

Second, the Court is concerned about the allegation that Defendant has forged Plaintiff’s signature on the letter dated January 13, 2013. (Opp’n, p. 4:17–18.) The admissibility of this letter is clearly an important factor in the Court’s determination of whether there was in fact an agreement for satisfaction of the judgment.

Finally, when considering the admissible evidence as a whole, the Court does not find that it is more likely than not that there has been actual satisfaction of the judgment. While some of Plaintiff’s arguments in opposition (such as its repeated questions regarding Best Trade Flower, when it was originally Plaintiff’s Complaint in 2011 that listed Defendant as known by that name) are irrelevant, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that insufficient evidence and foundation have been laid for Defendant’s allegations.

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant’s Motion to Compel Full Satisfaction of Judgment.