Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: BC680509, Date: 2023-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC680509    Hearing Date: February 23, 2023    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

 

Judge Upinder Kalra, Department 51

 

HEARING DATE:   February 23, 2023                              

 

CASE NAME:           Bernice Cheng v. Coastal LB Associates, LLC et al.

 

CASE NO.:                BC680509

 

MOTION FOR CHARGING ORDERS

 

MOVING PARTY:   Petitioners Caroline Cheng Jones and Diana Cheng

 

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of February 21, 2023.

 

REQUESTED RELIEF:

 

1.      An order granting the motion for charging orders as to the beneficial interest of Bernice Cheng in Obispo Associates, LLC, and Coast LB Associates LLC

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

1.      Motion for Charging Orders Against Beneficial Interests of Bernice Cheng in Obispo Associates, LLC, and Coast LB Associates LLC is GRANTED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

 

On October 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, and on February 20, 2018, the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for: 

1.    involuntary dissolution of Coastal LB Associates, LLC;  

1.    involuntary dissolution of Clary Associates, LLC;  

1.    involuntary dissolution of Obispo Associates, LLC; and  

1.    partition. 

 

On March 22, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration.

 

On March 23, 20218, Defendant Arlene Cheng filed an Answer.

 

On May 21, 2018, Defendants Coastal LB Associates, LLC, Caroline C. Jones, Diana Cheng, et al. filed an Answer.

 

On July 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint.

 

On September 4, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Confirm Award of Court-Appointed Appraisers and Order Buyout.

 

On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint.

 

On November 14, 2019, Defendants Coastal LB Associates, LLC, Caroline C. Jones, Diana Cheng, et al. filed an Answer.

 

On January 7, 2020, Plaintiff Arlene Cheng filed a Notice of Appeal.

 

On January 8, 2020, Plaintiff Bernice Cheng filed a Notice of Appeal.

 

On July 31, 2020, the Court entered a Notice that the Appellate Order Dismissing the Appeal.

 

On August 10, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.

 

On September 1, 2021, the Court of Appeal Opinion was entered, confirming the majority appraisal awarded and sett final buyout price.

 

On December 6, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion for OSC Re: Contempt.

 

On December 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal.

 

The current Motion for Charging Order was filed on October 13, 2022. No opposition has been filed as of February 21, 2023.

 

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure, § 708.310 provides the following:

 

If a money judgment is rendered against a partner or member but not against the partnership or limited liability company, the judgment debtor's interest in the partnership or limited liability company may be applied toward the satisfaction of the judgment by an order charging the judgment debtor's interest pursuant to Section 15907.03, 16504, or 17705.03 of the Corporations Code.

 

California Code of Civil Procedure, § 708.320 provides the following:

 

(a) A lien on a judgment debtor's interest in a partnership or limited liability company is created by service of a notice of motion for a charging order on the judgment debtor and on either of the following:

(1) All partners or the partnership.

(2) All members or the limited liability company.

 

(b) If a charging order is issued, the lien created pursuant to subdivision (a) continues under the terms of the order. If issuance of the charging order is denied, the lien is extinguished.

 

Corporations Code § 17705.03 provides the following:

 

(a) On application by a judgment creditor of a member or transferee, a court may enter a charging order against the transferable interest of the judgment debtor for the unsatisfied amount of the judgment. A charging order constitutes a lien on a judgment debtor's transferable interest and requires the limited liability company to pay over to the person to which the charging order was issued any distribution that would otherwise be paid to the judgment debtor.

 

(b) To the extent necessary to effectuate the collection of distributions pursuant to a charging order in effect under subdivision (a), the court may do any of the following:

(1) Appoint a receiver of the distributions subject to the charging order, with the power to make all inquiries the judgment debtor might have made.

(2) Make all other orders necessary to give effect to the charging order.

(3) Upon a showing that distributions under a charging order will not pay the judgment debt within a reasonable time, foreclose the lien and order the sale of the transferable interest. The purchaser at the foreclosure sale obtains only the transferable interest, does not thereby become a member, and is subject to Section 17705.02.

 

ANALYSIS:

 

Petitioners Caroline Cheng Jones and Diana Cheng move the Court to enforce two separate orders. Two money judgments were ordered against Respondent Bernice Cheng: the first on August 5, 2022, for $3,326.00, and another on August 5, 2022, for $5,937.35, totaling $9.263.55. (Dec. Einwwechter ¶ 3-4, Ex. A & B.) Respondent has failed to pay this amount.

 

            Under CCP § 708.310 and Corporate Code § 17705.03, Petitioners, as judgment creditors, can enforce money judgments through a motion such as this one. This money judgment orders are valid as they were ordered by the Court in August 2022. Moreover, under CCP § 685.010(a), “interest accrues at the rate of 10 percent per annum on the principal amount of a money judgment remaining unsatisfied.” (Motion 3: 18-19.) Interest presently is minimal since the orders were entered in August 2022, but “such interest will continue to accrue until the judgments are paid in full.” (Motion 3: 21-22.)

 

            Here, the Court finds that despite requests for payments based on the August 2022 orders, Respondent has failed to pay. Thus, under Corporations Code § 17705.03, the court can enter a charging order for unsatisfied amount. The facts indicate that Respondent Bernice Cheng is 24% owner of Obispo Associates, LLC and Coast LB Associates. (Dec. Einwechter ¶ 6.) Therefore, the Motion for Charging Order is GRANTED, as to the total $9,263.35.  

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

            Motion for Charging Order against Judgement Debtor’s Interest in Obispo Associates, LLC and Coast LB Associates is GRANTED.

 

Moving party to give notice.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Dated:             February 23, 2023                               ___________________________________

                                                                                    Upinder Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court