Macias v. Lange

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIKA MACIAS, et al., Case No.: 14-CV-2763-GPC-JMA

12 Plaintiffs, REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT ORDER AND 14 MYRON LANGE, FOR ORDER RESTRAINING 15 Defendant. JUDGMENT DEBTOR

16 [Doc. No. 238] 17 18 19 20 This Report and Recommendation is submitted to U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. 21 Curiel pursuant to Local Civil Rule 69.1(e) of the United States District Court for the 22 Southern District of California. See CivLR 69.1(e) (stating that all motions concerning 23 execution of a judgment, except motions for Judgment Debtor examinations, “must be 24 made to the assigned district judge, unless the motion relates to the post-judgment 25 discovery”). 26 Judgment Creditor Brancart & Brancart (“Judgment Creditor”), counsel to Plaintiff 27 Erika Macias (“Plaintiff”), moves the Court to enforce a 2017 judgment through an 28 assignment order and an order restraining Defendant/Judgment Debtor Myron Lange 1 (“Defendant”). Doc. No. 238. Defendant has not filed a response in opposition, and any 2 opposition would now be untimely. See Doc. No. 234. For the reasons stated herein, the 3 Court RECOMMENDS Judgment Creditor’s motion be GRANTED. 4 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 5 Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court on November 19, 2014, alleging that 6 Defendant engaged in a pattern of discrimination and harassment based on sex in violation 7 of the federal Fair Housing Act and related state laws. See Doc. No. 1. On October 18, 8 2016, a jury found in favor of Plaintiff and awarded her $55,320.00 in damages. Doc. No. 9 129. The Court entered judgment on March 29, 2017. Doc. No. 154. 10 On June 6, 2017, the Court issued an order awarding Judgment Creditor—Plaintiff’s 11 counsel Brancart & Brancart—$82,250.00 in attorneys’ fees and $5,328.00 in costs as the 12 prevailing party under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3613.1 Doc. No. 173 at 19. The 13 Clerk of Court issued an Abstract of Judgment for the judgment in favor of Plaintiff on 14 April 28, 2017, Doc. No. 168, and an Abstract of Judgment for the fee award to Brancart 15 & Brancart on June 22, 2017, Doc. No. 180. After Defendant failed to make any payment 16 on the judgment, Plaintiff obtained a writ of execution on October 20, 2021, and obtained 17 payment of her judgment after garnishing one of Defendant’s bank accounts. Doc. Nos. 18 186, 191–92; see also Doc. No. 238-1 ¶¶ 3–4. 19 Plaintiff’s counsel Brancart & Brancart obtained writs of execution and also 20 attempted to garnish Defendant’s financial accounts, but Defendant had closed those 21 accounts before the garnishment notices were served. Doc. Nos. 197–99; Doc. No. 238-1 22 ¶¶ 5–6. In order to identify additional financial accounts, Judgment Creditor obtained an 23 order for a Judgment Debtor Exam of Defendant. Doc. No. 208; Doc. No. 238-1 ¶ 7. 24 Judgment Creditor obtained orders continuing the Judgment Debtor exam four times after 25 Defendant evaded service by refusing to answer his door for process servers. Doc. Nos. 26

27 1 The Court also awarded attorneys’ fees and costs to the Legal Aid Society of San Diego. Doc. No. 173 28 1 208, 213, 218, 220; Doc. No. 238-1 ¶ 7. On February 10, 2023, personal service was 2 effected on Defendant for the Judgment Debtor Exam set for April 26, 2023. Doc. Nos. 3 220, 221, 223-1. In addition, Judgment Creditor had obtained an order for a third-party 4 examination of Defendant’s property manager, Abraham “Avi” Waiche, which was 5 personally served on him for the April 26 examination date. Doc. Nos. 206, 208, 209, 213, 6 218, 220, 222; see also Doc. No. 238-1 ¶¶ 31–32. 7 Neither Defendant nor Mr. Waiche appeared for the April 26, 2023 examinations. 8 Doc. No. 224 at 1; Doc. No. 238-1 ¶ 31. At that time, Judgment Creditor advised the Court 9 that it would not need to pursue further orders or sanctions against Mr. Waiche because 10 Mr. Waiche had represented to counsel Christopher Brancart that he had retired and no 11 longer had any involvement with Defendant or any of his rental properties. See Doc. No. 12 238-1 ¶ 31. 13 The Court set another status conference and order to show cause hearings, none of 14 which were attended by Defendant. Doc. Nos. 225, 226 at 1, 230. In addition, Defendant 15 refused to answer his door for the U.S. Marshals Service and rejected this Court’s mail.2 16 Doc. Nos. 227, 228, 234. Accordingly, the Court issued a briefing schedule for the instant 17 motion, which was served on Defendant. Doc. Nos. 234, 235. 18 Plaintiff’s counsel declares that Defendant has not made a single payment to 19 Brancart & Brancart. See generally Doc. No. 238-1. Therefore, the amount remaining due 20 to Judgment Creditor is $87,578.00 plus post-judgment interest at a rate of 1.16%3 pursuant 21 to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 22 On July 25, 2023, Judgment Creditor filed the instant motion for issuance of an 23 assignment order and an order restraining Defendant. Doc. No. 238. Specifically, 24 25 2 U.S. Marshal deputies were called to confirm Defendant’s presence in his home. Doc. No. 227. 26 Defendant did not open his door even though the “deputies heard him inside the home.” Id. The deputies proceeded to put the documents in the mail slot that went directly into Defendant’s home. Id. 27 3 See https://www.casb.uscourts.gov/sites/casb/files/historic_rates.pdf (outlining applicable post- judgment interest rates for judgments entered between June 2, 2017 and June 9, 2017). 28 1 Judgment Creditor requests an order assigning to Brancart & Brancart Defendant’s 2 “interest in any and all payments due, or which may become due, under any and all rental 3 agreements or Housing Assistant Payment (“HAP”) contracts, for residential real property 4 owned by [Defendant]” at the following seven addresses: (1) 4240 Menlo Avenue, Unit 2, 5 San Diego, California; (2) 4240 Menlo Avenue, Unit 10, San Diego, California; (3) 4240 6 Menlo Avenue, Unit 21, San Diego, California; (4) 4240 Menlo Avenue, Unit 26, San 7 Diego, California; (5) 4166 Menlo Avenue, San Diego, California; (6) 4168 Menlo 8 Avenue, San Diego, California; and (7) 2229 Bonita Street, Lemon Grove, California. Doc. 9 No. 238 at 2, 4. Judgment Creditor also seeks an order restraining Defendant from 10 encumbering, assigning, disposing of, transferring, and/or spending any payments related 11 to the rental agreements and/or HAP contracts at issue. Doc. No. 238 at 1–2. 12 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 13 The execution of final judgments is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69, 14 which states: 15 A money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution, unless the court directs otherwise. The procedure on execution—and in proceedings supplementary 16 to and in aid of judgment or execution—must accord with the procedure of 17 the state where the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the extent it applies. 18

19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a). Thus, post-judgment enforcement proceedings in this court must 20 comply with California law. Credit Suisse v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 21 130 F.3d 1342, 1344 (9th Cir. 1997); Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 95 F.3d 848, 850 (9th Cir. 22 1996). 23 California allows for an order assigning the judgment debtor’s right to payments due 24 from a third person to the judgment creditor. Gutierrez v. Vantia Properties, LLC, 2015 25 WL 164301, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2015) (citation omitted). California Code of Civil 26 Procedure § 708.510 provides, in relevant part: 27 /// 28 1 (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 2 to the judgment creditor . . . all right or part of a right to payment due or to 3 become due, whether or not the right is conditioned in future developments, including but not limited to the following types of payments: 4

5 . . .

6 (2) Rents. 7 . . . 8

9 (b) The notice of the motion shall be served on the judgment debtor. Service shall be made personally or by mail. 10

11 (c) . . . in 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, 12 including the following: 13 (1) The reasonable requirements of a judgment debtor who is a natural person 14 and of persons supported in whole or in part by the judgment debtor. 15 (2) Payments the judgment debtor is required to make or that are deducted in 16 satisfaction of other judgments and wage assignments, including earnings 17 assignment orders for support.

18 (3) The amount remaining due on the money judgment. 19 (4) The amount being or to be received in satisfaction of the right to payment 20 that may be assigned. 21 Cal. Code Civ. P. § 708.510(a)–(c). The right to payment may be assigned only to the 22 extent necessary to satisfy the judgment creditor’s money judgment. Id. at § 708.510(d). 23 Additionally, where part of the payments are exempt, the amount of payments assigned 24 should not exceed the difference between the gross amount of the payments and the exempt 25 amount. Id. at § 708.510(f). 26 “‘[D]etailed evidentiary support’ is not required under [section] 708.510. But some 27 evidentiary support is still needed; [section] 708.510 refers to a ‘payment due or become 28 1 due,’ which suggests some degree of concreteness to the expected payment is required.” 2 Passport Health, Inc. v. Travel Med, Inc., 2012 WL 1292473, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 3 2012) (quoting Legal Additions LLC v. Kowalksi, 2011 WL 3156724, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 4 26, 2011)). “Certainly, there needs to be more than just speculation before the remedy of 5 an assignment can be provided.” Id. 6 California Code of Civil Procedure § 708.530 provides that, “[f]or the purpose of 7 priority, an assignee of a right to payment pursuant to this article shall be deemed to be a 8 bona fide assignee for value under the terms of Section 955.1 of the Code.” Cal. Code Civ. 9 P. § 708.530(a). Further, “[a]n assignment of the right to future rent . . . is recordable as 10 an instrument affecting real property and the priority of such an assignment is governed by 11 Section 1214 of the Civil Code.” Id. As for persons obligated to make payments to the 12 judgment debtor, “[t]he rights of an obligor are not affected by an order assigning the right 13 to payment until notice of the order is received by the obligor.” Cal. Code Civ. P. 14 § 708.540. 15 Additionally, California Code of Civil Procedure § 708.520 permits a judgment 16 creditor to apply to the court for an order restraining the judgment debtor from assigning 17 or otherwise disposing of the right to payment that is sought to be assigned. Cal. Code Civ. 18 P. § 708.520(a). “The court may issue an order pursuant to this section upon a showing of 19 need for the order.” Id. at § 708.520(b). “The threshold for showing need is ‘low.’” 20 SKAZZI3 Capital Ltd. v. Pathway Genomics Corp., 2019 WL 7172162, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 21 Sec. 20, 2019) (quoting Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N2G Distributing, Inc., 2014 WL 22 10384606, at *6–7 (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2014)). Any order restraining a judgment debtor 23 must be personally served upon the judgment debtor and must contain notice to the 24 judgment debtor that “the failure to comply with the order may subject the judgment debtor 25 to being held in contempt of court.” Cal. Code. Civ. P. § 708.520(d). 26 /// 27 28 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 A. Assignment Order 3 As an initial matter, the Court finds that Defendant was adequately served with the 4 instant motion by mail as required under California Code of Civil Procedure § 708.510(b). 5 Additionally, the relevant factors described in California Code of Civil Procedure 6 § 708.510(c) favor the issuance of an assignment order. Defendant has not filed any 7 opposition or otherwise responded to the instant motion or any of this Court’s recent 8 orders.4 Therefore, he has not presented any evidence of his reasonable requirements or 9 those supported by him, nor evidence of any payments he is required to make or that are 10 deducted in satisfaction of other judgments and wage assignments. 11 Further, Judgment Creditor has provided evidence demonstrating the amount 12 remaining due on the judgment is $87,578.00 plus interest, and that Judgment Creditor 13 expects to receive an estimated $6,000.00 to $7,500.00 in monthly rents as assigned. Doc. 14 No. 238 at 8. Judgment Creditor has also provided significant evidence demonstrating 15 Defendant’s right and interest to collect monthly rents from the above-listed seven 16 properties. See Doc. Nos. 238-2–238-15. Based on that evidence, the Court finds that 17 Judgment Creditor has satisfied the requirements of California Civil Code of Procedure 18 § 708.510. 19 The Court also finds that it has the authority to issue an order that directly assigns 20 Defendant’s rights to rents or any payments due from the above-listed seven properties to 21 Judgment Creditor. See E. Jordan Plastics, Inc. Suzhou Xincheng Gardening Material Co., 22 Ltd., 2018 WL 1806699, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2018) (“[T]he assignment order 23 contemplated by Section 708.510 includes a court order that assigns a right to payment 24 25 4 Although Defendant failed to respond to the Court’s recent Orders to Show Cause, Doc. Nos. 230, 234, 26 Defendant had communicated with the Court by informal ex parte letters sent on April 16, 2023 and May 25, 2023. Doc. Nos. 244, 245. These letters demonstrate to the Court Defendant’s knowledge of the 27 current state of these proceedings, his unwillingness to comply with the Court’s Orders, and his intent to evade paying the judgment due to Brancart & Brancart. See, e.g., Doc. No. 245 at 1 (“Please do not be 28 1 outright (not simply an order directing the judgment debtor to do so).”) (citations omitted); 2 Mentor Capital, Inc. v. Bhang Chocolate Co., Inc., et al., 2017 WL 3335767, at *3 (N.D. 3 Cal. Aug. 4, 2017) (“The court could order [the debtor] to assign to [the creditor] property 4 right sufficient to pay the judgment. Alternatively, under California law, it seems clear 5 that the court could itself directly assign [the debtor’s] property rights to [the creditor] up 6 to the amount that is owed under the judgment.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted); 7 Innovation Ventures, LLC, 2014 WL 10384606, at * 4 (directly assigning judgment creditor 8 the right to payments owed by third parties to judgment debtor) (quoting Garden City 9 Boxing Club, Inc. v. Briano, 2007 WL 4463264, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2007) (“[W]here 10 a judgment creditor can identify a person or entity which is obligated to make a payment 11 to the judgment debtor, and where that right to payment is assignable, the right to payment 12 can be assigned from a third party obligor to the judgment creditor.”)). 13 The Court now turns to whether there is adequate evidence of Defendant’s rights and 14 interests in the above-listed properties. Judgment Creditor has provided public records, 15 including deeds, demonstrating that Defendant possesses title to the seven properties.5 See 16 Doc. Nos. 238-3–238-8, 241. Additionally, Judgment Creditor has provided evidence of 17 past rental agreements between certain named tenants at those properties and Defendant 18 that indicate that Judgment Creditor has a right and interest in payments made by tenants 19 residing at the seven rental properties. See Doc. Nos. 238-9–238-12. Therefore, the Court 20 finds that Judgment Creditor has provided sufficient evidence of Defendant’s right and 21 interest to collect rent from the above-listed properties. 22 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Judgment Creditor’s request for an 23 order directly assigning Defendant’s rights and interests to the rents and payments 24 25 5 The Court notes that the property at 4166 Menlo Avenue is “a multifamily unit” that contains a separate 26 rental unit identified as 4168 Menlo Avenue. Doc. Nos. 238 at 4, 238-1 ¶ 18. The Court finds that Judgment Creditor has adequately demonstrated Defendant’s right and interest in 4168 Menlo Avenue. 27 See Doc. Nos. 238-7, 238-9. In addition, although Judgment Creditor’s Motion at times only references “six” properties by combining 4166 and 4168 Menlo Avenue, for clarity, the Court notes that it considers 28 1 generated by the above-listed seven rental properties to Judgment Creditor be GRANTED 2 to the extent necessary to satisfy the judgment against Defendant. 3 B. Restraining Order 4 The Court also finds that Judgment Creditor has met the low threshold showing 5 required for an order restraining Defendant. Judgment was entered in this case back in 6 2017, and since that time, Defendant has failed to make voluntary payments and has utterly 7 failed to comply with this Court’s orders. Doc. No. 238-1 ¶¶ 3, 7–10. Additionally, it 8 appears that Defendant has recently requested that some of his tenants pay their rent in cash 9 instead of check or pay their rent by check to another person other than Defendant. See 10 Doc. No. 240 ¶ 10; see also Innovation Ventures, LLC, 2014 WL 10384606, at * 7 11 (restraining order warranted because judgment debtor failed to make voluntary payments 12 and evidence suggested debtor “may attempt to assign or otherwise dispose of the rights to 13 the payments at issue in the absence of a restraining order.”). For these reasons, the Court 14 RECOMMENDS that Judgment Creditor’s request for an order restraining judgment 15 debtor be GRANTED. 16 IV. CONCLUSION 17 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED: 18 1. Judgment Creditor’s request for an assignment order, Doc. No. 238, be GRANTED 19 to the extent that such an order directly assigns to Plaintiff’s counsel Brancart & 20 Brancart the rights and interests of Defendant/Judgment Debtor, Myron Lange, to 21 any rents or payments due or which may become due, under any and all rental 22 agreements, for residential real property owned by Myron Lange at the following 23 seven addresses: (1) 4240 Menlo Avenue, Unit 2, San Diego, California; (2) 4240 24 Menlo Avenue, Unit 10, San Diego, California; (3) 4240 Menlo Avenue, Unit 21, 25 San Diego, California; (4) 4240 Menlo Avenue, Unit 26, San Diego, California; 26 (5) 4166 Menlo Avenue, San Diego, California; (6) 4168 Menlo Avenue, San Diego, 27 California; and (7) 2229 Bonita Street, Lemon Grove, California. 28 /// l 2. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 708.540, Judgment Creditor be 2 ORDERED to serve a copy of any final order assigning such rights and interests 3 upon the individuals residing at the above-titled rental properties. 4 3. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 708.540, Judgment Creditor be 5 ORDERED to serve a copy of any final order assigning such rights and interests 6 upon Abraham “Avi” Waiche and the San Diego Housing Commission. 7 4. Judgment Creditor’s request for an order restraining judgment debtor, Myron Lange, 8 be GRANTED, and that Myron Lange be restrained from assigning or otherwise 9 disposing of his rights and interests in the rents or payments due, or which may 10 become due, under any and all rental agreements for residential property owned by 11 Myron Lange at the following seven addresses: (1) 4240 Menlo Avenue, Unit 2, 12 San Diego, California; (2) 4240 Menlo Avenue, Unit 10, San Diego, California; 13 (3) 4240 Menlo Avenue, Unit 21, San Diego, California; (4) 4240 Menlo Avenue, 14 Unit 26, San Diego, California; (5) 4166 Menlo Avenue, San Diego, California; 15 (6) 4168 Menlo Avenue, San Diego, California; and (7) 2229 Bonita Street, Lemon 16 Grove, California. In addition, Myron Lange shall be further restrained from 17 interfering with, intimidating, harassing, evicting, or threatening to evict any tenant 18 whose rents are assigned by the Court’s order or from taking any action or refusing 19 to act to reduce residential services or retaliate against those tenants. 20 Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and 21 ||recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document 22 ||should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 23 || The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result 24 the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 25 || 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 || Dated: September 11, 2023 | A | Se 28 Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge