Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 24STCV04536, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV04536 Hearing Date: March 13, 2024 Dept: 39
Robert Lindholm,
et al. v. Crystal Bergstrom, et al.
Case No.
24STCV04536
Ex Parte
Application
Plaintiffs
Robert Lindholm and Carolyn Lindholm (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this
action against Crystal Bergstrom, Judicial Judgment Enforcement Services, Joe
Boyle, and Filip Van de Cappelle (collectively, “Defendants”). Ms. Lindholm is an attorney and represents
both Plaintiffs in this case.
Plaintiffs allege that they settled
an underlying dispute for $25,000.
(Complaint, ¶ 11.) Plaintiffs
allege that Defendant Crystal Bergstrom “repudiated and breached the contract,
and is currently pursuing collection on the judgment.” (Id., ¶ 12.)
Plaintiffs allege that Bergstrom served a notice of wage garnishment
upon Ms. Lindholm’s law firm.
Plaintiffs
filed an ex parte application for an order “instructing [Ms. Lindholm’s law
firm] to not respond to any subpoena or wage garnishment issued by the
unlicensed collector, Crystal Bergstrom, dba Judicial Judgment Enforcement
Services, until a motion to enforce the settlement can be heard.” (Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application, p.
5:2-5.) There are several problems with
Plaintiffs’ ex parte application. As an
initial matter, Plaintiffs have not served the summons and complaint, or this
ex parte application, though that is not fatal.
The larger problem is that Plaintiffs identify no statutory or common
law authority that permits the Court to issue the order they seek. To the extent the Court has authority to
issue this order, Plaintiffs do not demonstrate any likelihood of success on
the merits based upon admissible evidence.
Nor have Plaintiffs demonstrated any exigency that would support a grant
of extraordinary relief.
Based upon
the foregoing, the ex parte application is denied. The Court’s clerk shall serve this order upon
Plaintiffs’ counsel, Ms. Lindholm.
Further notice is not required.