Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 23STCV25604, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING.  The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

Case Number: 23STCV25604    Hearing Date: February 20, 2025    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   February 20, 2025                                          

CASE NAME:           Gambit Media LLC v. Yoga Democracy of AZ LLC

CASE NO.:                23STCV25604

MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT ORDER

MOVING PARTY:  Plaintiff Gambit Media LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of February 12, 2025

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An Order assigning all or part of any right to payment due, or to become due, to Defendant until the judgment is paid in full;

2.      An Order directing all third parties to submit those funds to Plaintiff’s counsel;

3.      An Order restraining and enjoining Defendant from encumbering, assigning, disposing of, or spending the funds and/or rights to payment thereunder.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion for Assignment Order is GRANTED. Plaintiff is assigned all payments due, or to become due, from Stripe, Inc. until payment of its judgment in full;

2.      Defendant Yoga Democracy of AZ LLC is ORDERED not to assign or otherwise dispose of its rights to payment received from Stripe, Inc.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On October 19, 2023, Plaintiff Gambit Media LLC (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendant Yoga Democracy of AZ LLC (Defendant) with a claim for breach of contract. According to the Complaint, the parties entered a settlement agreement whereby Defendant would pay Plaintiff a set amount of money owed for services. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made two payments and then stopped making payments or curing the default.

On December 27, 2023, Plaintiff requested default against Defendant.

On February 20, 2024, the court entered default judgment against Defendant.

On November 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Assignment Order. Defendant has not filed an opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD:

Code of Civil Procedure § 708.510(a) states, in relevant part: 

(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, upon application of the judgment creditor on noticed motion, the court may order the judgment debtor to assign to the judgment creditor or to a receiver appointed pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 708.610) all or part of a right to payment due or to become due, whether or not the right is conditioned on future developments, including but not limited to the following types of payments: 

(1) Wages due from the federal government that are not subject to withholding under an earnings withholding order. 

(2) Rents. 

(3) Commissions.  

(4) Royalties. 

(5) Payments due from a patent or copyright. 

(6) Insurance policy loan value.  

Code of Civil Procedure section 708.510(c), further provides:  

[I]n determining whether to order an assignment or the amount of an assignment pursuant to subdivision (a), the court may take into consideration all relevant factors, including the following: 

(1) The reasonable requirements of a judgment debtor who is a natural person and of persons supported in whole or in part by the judgment debtor. 

(2) Payments the judgment debtor is required to make or that are deducted in satisfaction of other judgments and wage assignments, including earnings assignment orders for support. 

(3) The amount remaining due on the money judgment. 

(4) The amount being or to be received in satisfaction of the right to payment that may be assigned. 

Construing all the applicable statutes together, it seems clear that the “assignment order” contemplated by Code of Civil Procedure § 708.510, et seq. must include a court order that assigns a right to payment outright (not simply an order directing the judgment debtor to do so).  

The court may also issue “an order restraining the judgment debtor from assigning or otherwise disposing of the right to payment that is sought to be assigned” “upon a showing of need for the order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.520(a), (b).) 

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff seeks a court order assigning Defendant’s rights to payments due or to become due to Plaintiff until the judgment entered in this case, including post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, is paid. Plaintiff contends Defendant has been receiving payments at least via Stripe since 2020 but has evaded its obligation to pay Plaintiff. (Weg Decl. ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff further contends that this court should issue an order restraining Defendant from assigning or otherwise disposing of the payment right being sought because Defendant has failed to make any payments since 2022 despite consistently receiving money through third-party merchant processors.

Defendant has not filed an opposition.

Here, Plaintiff’s position is well taken. Plaintiff engaged in unsuccessful enforcement proceedings in Arizona. (Weg Decl. ¶ 3.) They discovered that Defendant has been receiving payments from Stripe, a third-party merchant payment service. (Id. at ¶ 4.) However, the court is not persuaded by the argument that a blanket assignment order is warranted because of the “several banks and merchant processors” they served subpoenas on, Plaintiff only presents evidence of funds from Stripe. The court therefore limits the assignment order to Stripe – the identified third-party merchant service with “tens of thousands” in payments. (Ibid.) Plaintiff is free to file a subsequent motion to modify the assignment order to include additional third parties should the need arise.

The court is also persuaded that Defendant should not interfere with Plaintiff collecting money owed from Stripe.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.

CONCLUSION:

            For the foregoing reasons, the court decides the pending motion as follows:

1.      Motion for Assignment Order is GRANTED. Plaintiff is assigned all payments due, or to become due, from Stripe, Inc. until payment of its judgment in full;

2.      Defendant Yoga Democracy of AZ LLC is ORDERED not to assign or otherwise dispose of its rights to payment received from Stripe, Inc.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             MONTH DAY, 2025              __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court