TDI, LLC v. Sam Vaziri Vance, Inc.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT ORDER

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff TDI, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Unopposed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff TDI, LLC, alleges that it entered into a sales and purchase agreement with Defendant Sam Vaziri Vance, Inc., for the purchase of nitrile rubber gloves, by which Defendant agreed to deliver the gloves to Plaintiff in the United States by air freight.  Plaintiff alleges it wired $825,000.00 for air freight by chartered plane—however, Defendant had not obtained the gloves and had failed to take the legal steps necessary to ship them. Defendant then made repeated misrepresentations regarding the status of the shipment. At the time of the FAC’s filing, Defendant had not delivered the gloves or returned the $825,000.00. 

Plaintiff now moves for an assignment order assigning all income paid by Shopify, Inc. to Judgment Debtor Monza Eyewear, LLC, and an order prohibiting judgment debtor Monza from assigning its right to payment from Shopify. No oppositions were filed. 

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Assignment Order is OFF CALENDAR due to a procedural defect.  Plaintiff is free to refile and reserve in a proper manner.

Plaintiff to give notice.

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Assignment Order

As judgment creditor, Plaintiff moves under CCP section 708.510 seeking (1) an assignment order of all payments due from Shopify, Inc. to Judgment Debtor Monza Eyewear, LLC, and (2) an order prohibiting Judgment Debtor Monza from transferring or otherwise changing the right of payment from Shopify, Inc.

On January 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Notice of and Motion for Assignment Order.” That filing is only one page, and despite referencing a “memorandum of points and authorities” that memorandum is not included with the filing (nor does it appear anywhere else in the docket).  The “Declaration of Bryan M. Grundon” was, in fact separately filed concurrently with the notice of motion, as well as a separate proposed Order.  The “Declaration of Dan Clarkson” is no where to be seen in the court file.

With certain exceptions not applicable here, a party filing a motion “must” serve and file a supporting memorandum. (See Rules 3.1112(a) & 3.1113(a); see also Rule 3.1114 [providing exceptions for certain motions].) “The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” (Rule 3.1113(b).) “The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion…is not meritorious and cause for its denial.” (Rule 3.1113(a).)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Assignment Order is OFF CALENDAR.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  February 20, 2024 ___________________________________