Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case EC067254 2022-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Dennis P. Block seeks to compel defendant Daniel Bramzon to respond to interrogatories which were propounded to defendant pursuant to CCP section 708.020, which permits written interrogatories to be propounded to a “judgment debtor.” Such interrogatories are permitted which request “information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment.” CCP section 708.020 (a).

Plaintiff argues that the interrogatories were appropriately propounded upon defendant Bramzon because in this matter, on January 28, 2022, the court ordered Bramzon to respond to discovery, and also made orders that Bramzon pay a total of $8,460 in monetary sanctions, which have not been timely paid.

The moving papers indicate that the court orders are attached as Exhibits G and F. The file shows that on January 28, 2022, the court considered several discovery motions, and the minute order shows that the court granted in part a motion to compel defendant Bramzon to serve further responses to Form Interrogatories, pursuant to which plaintiff Block was awarded sanctions against Bramzon in the sum of $5,260.00, payable within 60 days. The court also granted a motion to compel Bramzon to serve further responses to requests for production of documents and awarded sanctions in favor of plaintiff Block and against Bramzon in the sum of $3,200, also payable within sixty days. [Minute Order 01/28/2022, pp. 27, 28].

Plaintiff relies on Newland v Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, in which the Second District noted that sanctions orders are considered enforceable orders and may be executed on, and the failure to comply punished as contempt. The Second District noted:

“Weil and Brown observe that many attorneys seem to be unaware that monetary sanction orders are enforceable through the execution of judgment laws. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial 3 (The Rutter Group 1994) PP 9:344.21, 9:344.22, p.9(1) -92.) These orders have the force and effect of a money judgment, and are immediately enforceable through execution, except to the extent the trial court may order a stay of the sanction.”

There has been no stay ordered of the sanction, and it accordingly appears that plaintiff has appropriately invoked the enforcement of judgment procedures to enforce the sanctions order in propounding the subject discovery to defendant pursuant to CCP sections 708.010 and 708.020.

CCP sections 708.020 permits a judgment creditor to propound interrogatories on a judgment debtor to obtain “information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment.” Under CCP section 708.020(c), “Interrogatories served pursuant to this section may be enforced, to the extent practicable, in the same manner as interrogatories in a civil action.”

Under CCP § 2030.290, “if a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response,” that party “waives any legal right to exercise the option to produce...as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product...” Under subdivision (b), “the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”

Plaintiff argues that in this case, interrogatories have been directed to defendant and defendant has failed to serve timely responses, so plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling responses without objections, which have been waived.

Defendant Bramzon argues that the motion should be denied because defendant judgment debtor was not personally served with the subject interrogatories, and service on his counsel was not effective in the context of enforcement of judgment matters.

The moving papers show that the interrogatories were served on defendant’s counsel of record by email, “per agreement of parties,” and on defendant Bramzon by email, “per agreement of parties,” and also by priority mail. [Roshanian Decl., Ex. A].

As noted above, defendant Bramzon is being requested to respond to discovery pursuant to the Enforcement of Judgments provisions. Under CCP section 680.240, a “Judgement debtor” means “the person against whom a judgment is rendered.”

“(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), when a writ, notice, order, or other paper is required to be served under this title on the judgment debtor, it shall be served on the judgment debtor instead of the attorney for the judgment debtor.

(1) The judgment debtor has filed with the court and served on the judgment creditor a request that service on the judgment debtor under this title be made by serving the attorney specified in the request. Service on the judgment creditor of the request shall be made personally or by mail. The request shall include a consent, signed by the attorney, to receive service under this title on behalf of the judgment debtor.

(c) A request or consent under subdivision (b) may be revoked by filing with the court a notice revoking the request or consent. A copy of the notice revoking the request or consent shall be served on the judgment creditor. Service shall be made personally or by mail. The judgment creditor is not bound by the revocation until the judgment creditor has received a copy of the notice revoking the request or consent.”

This posture leaves the service on defendant by priority mail. Defendant argues that service was required to be made in the same manner as service of summons, in reliance on CCP section 684.110 (a)(1), which provides, in pertinent part, “if legal process is required to be personally served under this title, service shall be made in the same manner as a summons is served…”

CCP section 708.020 does not expressly require personal service of interrogatories on a judgment debtor. Defendant relies on Alcalde v. NAC Real Estate Investments & Assignments, Inc. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. 2008) 580 F.Supp.2d 969, 972, in which the federal district court noted that in that case there had been an agreement for the judgment debtors’ attorney to receive service, but the agreement did not satisfy the literal requirements of CCP section 684.020. The district court nevertheless found service by that means sufficient to certify the matter for a contempt proceeding on the basis that the judgment debtors had actual knowledge of the proceedings, including service of post-judgment requests for production on their counsel, and a court order to serve responses without objection to the requests. The district court noted, in a footnote:

“Nevertheless, since the purpose behind C.C.P. § 684.020 is to ensure the judgment debtor has actual knowledge of the enforcement proceedings, see Ahart, California Practice Guide: Enforcing Judgments and Debts, ¶ 6:106 (2008 rev.) (“The Code makes it quite clear that service on the judgment debtor's attorney must be expressly authorized by the debtor and agreed to by the debtor's attorney. It is not enough that the attorney remains ‘attorney of record’ after the judgment is entered. Reason: This ensures that the debtor receives actual notice-e.g., where debtor's counsel has not been paid or no longer represents the debtor.”), and since the judgment debtors here clearly had such actual knowledge, the Court will certify this matter for a contempt proceeding.”

Here, there is also a failure to satisfy the requirements of CCP section 684.020 with respect to service on the attorney, but, if the court were to apply the “actual notice” standard actually applied in Alcalde, it appears that in this case the opposition concedes that defendant has actual notice of the service of the interrogatories, as well as the service of this motion.

Nevertheless, the court will interpret the statute and the actual notice reasoning behind it to require that the interrogatories, if served on the judgment debtor directly in the absence of an agreement for service on the attorney, must be served on the judgment debtor in the same manner as service of summons. Service in such a manner was not made here, either with respect to the interrogatories, or the notice of this motion. The motion accordingly is denied, without prejudice to the propounding party re-serving the subject discovery.

Moving party requests monetary sanctions. Under CCP section 2030.290(c), “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories…” Defendant and judgment debtor has not unsuccessfully opposed the motion here, so sanctions are not warranted against him.

“for an order compelling Defendant Daniel J. Bramzon ("Defendant") to provide verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiffs First Set of Judgment Debtor Interrogatories pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 708.020 and request for sanctions of $4,060 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030(k).”

Plaintiff Dennis P. Block’s Motion to Compel Defendant Daniel Bramzon’s Responses to the First Set of Judgment Debtor Interrogatories is DENIED. The interrogatories and notice of this motion were not properly served on defendant. Motion is denied without prejudice to plaintiff re-serving Plaintiff’s First Set of Judgment Debtor Interrogatories to Daniel Bramzon, if appropriate.

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams offers free audio and video appearance. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear. With respect to the wearing of face masks, Department D recognizes that currently, the Los Angeles Department of Public Health strongly recommends masks indoors, especially when interacting with individuals whose vaccination status is unknown; for individuals who have a health condition that puts them at higher risk for severe illness; individuals who live with someone who is at higher risk; and for individuals who are around children who are not yet eligible for vaccines. In accordance with this guidance, it is strongly recommended that anyone personally appearing in Department D wear a face mask. The Department D Judge and court staff will continue to wear face masks. If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.