Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 20-1136400, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling
The claim of exemption filed by third party Boostaddict.com LLC is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (Code Civ. Proc., § 720.310; Oxford Street Properties, LLC v. Rehabilitation Assocs., LLC (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 296, 307; Peck v. Hagen (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 602, 607.)
Here, on 07/12/22, third party Boostaddict.com LLC filed a written claim of exemption with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department asserting that all of the domain names which had been levied upon belonged to Boostaddict.com LLC. On 07/25/22, Judgment Creditor Eric Brahms filed a petition for hearing to determine the validity of Boostaddict.com LLC’s third-party claim.
On a hearing to determine the validity of the third-party claim, the third-party claimant has the burden of proof. (CCP § 720.360; Oxford Street Properties, LLC v. Rehabilitation Assocs., LLC, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th at 307; Whitehouse v. Six Corp. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 527, 533; ITT Comm'l Finance Corp. v. Tech Power, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1551, 1557.)
The Court finds that Boostaddict.com LLC met its burden of proof only with regard to the domain names that are the subject of the September 20, 2018 Assignment of Domain Names. (See Ex. C to Wilk Declaration; Ex. D to Supplemental Wilk Declaration.) The Assignment of Domain Names demonstrates that on September 20, 2018, Judgment Debtor Joseph Wilk assigned to BoostAddict.com LLC all right, title and interest in and to the domain names attached as Exhibit A to the Assignment. Exhibit A to the Assignment lists 42 domain names. (See Id.) The Assignment is authenticated by Judgment Debtor. The evidence also demonstrates that BoostAddict.com LLC is a separate legal entity that was formed on August 26, 2018. (See Wilk Declaration ¶ 4 and Ex. B thereto; Supplemental Wilk Declaration ¶ 19 and Ex. C thereto.)
Judgment Creditor’s argument that the assignment is fraudulent is based on speculation. Judgment Creditor offers no evidence to support his contention that the Assignment is a false document created to thwart the levy. Judgment Creditor argues that there is no evidence that GoDaddy.com ever received notice of the Assignment prior to the date of levy. However, Judgment Creditor fails to provide any authority to show that this factor is relevant to validity of the Assignment. Further, the fact that GoDaddy.com executed the levy by itself does not evidence that the domain names are owned by Judgment Debtor and Judgment Creditor provided no authority to support such a contention.
Moreover, GoDaddy.com’s Memorandum of Garnishee specifically stated that it takes no position on the parties’ dispute regarding the claims or rights to the domain name. (Ex. B to ROA 251.) Lastly, Judgment Debtor’s explanation for why he stated in his Claim of Exemption filed on March 25, 2022, that the domain names were his personal property used in his trade, business and profession is credible. (See Supplemental Wilk Declaration ¶ 2-8.) Judgment Debtor filed the Claim of Exemption in pro per; thus, it is reasonable that he would use improper wording when filing the Claim of Exemption.
Therefore, Boostaddict.com LLC’s claim of exemption as to the domain names listed in the September 20, 2018 Assignment of Domain Names is GRANTED.
In addition to the domain names listed in the 2018 Assignment, there are 11 additional domain names that are subject to levy and to which Judgment Debtor asserts Boostaddict.com LLC purchased after its formation and owns. (See Supplemental Wilk Declaration ¶ 13; see also ROA 214 [Order re Claim of Exemption].) These consist of the following domain names:
ericbrahmsfelon.com
ericbrahms.info
ericbrahms.com
ericbrahms.net
emilybrahms.com
emilybrahmsmakeup.com
emilybrumfield.com
charliebrahms.com
loganbrahms.com
addictev.com
lotusboost.com
The Court finds the evidence is insufficient to support Boostaddict.com LLC’s claim of ownership as to the above 11 domain names. Boostaddict.com LLC submitted various payment statements and payment transaction history details that purportedly show that Boostaddict.com LLC made payments for certain domain names. (See Exs. G, I, J to Supplemental Wilk Declaration.) However, these documents merely show that Boostaddict.com LLC made various payments to GoDaddy on various dates. The documents do not demonstrate that Boostaddict.com LLC owns the subject domain names.
Boostaddict.com LLC also submitted a screenshot of GoDaddy’s “My Profile” page which lists organization as “Boostaddict.com LLC.” However, this document does not refer to any specific domain names. Thus, it does not provide evidence of Boostaddict.com LLC’s ownership of any of the domain names at issue.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Boostaddict.com LLC failed to meet its burden of proof with regard to the above 11 domain names. Thus, the claim of exemption is DENIED as to those domain names.
Judgment Creditor is to prepare a proposed order in accordance with this ruling.
Judgment Creditor to give notice.