Penson & Company, LLC v. Cloudstyle Store

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 28, 2023
• Docket: 4:20-cv-05174
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PENSON & COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 20-cv-05174-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING RENEWED 9 v. MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT

10 CLOUDSTYLE STORE, et al., Re: ECF No. 116 Defendants. 11

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Penson & Company, LLC’s renewed motion for assignment. 14 ECF No. 116. For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant the motion. 15 Because the facts and procedural history of this action are well-known to the parties, see 16 ECF No. 115, the Court will not elaborate them here. 17 In sum, Penson previously sought an order, under Rule 69(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of 18 Civil Procedure and California Code of Civil Procedure section 708.510(a), that any rights 19 Cloudstyle has to disbursements from the Amazon Payments account for seller ID 20 ABVOXG9QD52NV should be assigned to it. See ECF No. 107. On September 27, 2023, the 21 Court denied that motion on the ground that Penson’s evidence—“a declaration from counsel 22 based on information and belief”—had not established that Cloudstyle had any right to the 23 Amazon Payments account registered to Yun Duan. ECF No. 115 at 2 (internal quotations and 24 citations omitted). The Court did, however, provide that “Penson may renew its motion if it can 25 present evidence that Cloudstyle has a right to the funds held in the Amazon Payments account for 26 seller ID ABVOXG9QD52NV.” Id. at 3. Penson now brings a renewed motion for assignment. 27 Under California law, “upon application of the judgment creditor on noticed motion, the 1 payment due or to become due, whether or not the right is conditional upon future developments 2 . . . . ” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 708.510(a). While “there needs to be more than just speculation 3 before the remedy of an assignment order can be provided[,]” the judgment creditor need only 4 provide “some evidentiary support” and “some degree of concreteness [that] the expected payment 5 is required.” Legal Additions LLC v. Kowalski, No. C-08-2754 EMC, 2011 WL 3156724, at *2 6 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2011) (emphasis omitted); see also UMG Recordings, Inc. v. BCD Music Grp., 7 Inc., No. CV07-05808 SJO FFMX, 2009 WL 2213678 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2009), amended in part, 8 No. CV 07-05808 SJO (FFM, 2011 WL 798901 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2011) (holding “detailed 9 evidentiary support” is not required by section 708.510). In addition, the judgment creditor is 10 required to “describe [the sources of the right to payment] with sufficient detail so that 11 [d]efendants can file a claim of exemption or other opposition.” Icho v. PacketSwitch.com, Inc., 12 No. CV 01-20858-LHK (PSG), 2012 WL 4343834, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2012) (alterations in 13 original) (citation omitted). 14 In its amended motion for reconsideration, Penson has presented emails from Amazon’s 15 counsel demonstrating that all the proceeds from Amazon Standard Identification Number 16 (“ASIN”) B087M49C1M were “deposited into [the] seller account associated with seller ID 17 ABVOXG9QD52NV.” ECF No. 116-4 at 2. As previously noted in a statement of non-party 18 from Amazon Payments, Inc. regarding how the funds in Cloudstyle’s Amazon account should be 19 allocated:

20 Amazon has a seller account registered by Hangzhou Yun Duan Import and Export Trade Co., Ltd. (“HYD”). HYD uses the dba 21 Cloudstyle. The legal entity HYD using the dba Cloudstyle holds a single account under seller ID ABVOXG9QD52NV[.] 22 23 ECF No. 57 at 2. In its opposition, Cloudstyle argues that the emails provided by Penson are “not 24 admissible evidence.” ECF No. 118 at 3. Perhaps so, but “there is nothing in the text of [section] 25 708.510 which suggests that a showing of a right to payment due or to become due may be made 26 only upon admissible evidence.” Legal Additions LLC, 2011 WL 3156724 at *2. Here, the Court 27 finds that the emails Penson provided are sufficient to meet the “relatively low” evidentiary 1 Cloudstyle’s remaining arguments are likewise unpersuasive. Cloudstyle contends that it 2 || has not “been served either personally or by mail with notice of the motion for assignment.” ECF 3 No. 118 at 5. But legal counsel for Cloudstyle and Yun Duan registered for the use of, and 4 || entered appearances via, ECF, which is sufficient for the purposes of actual notice. See ECF Nos. 5 11, 40, 49; Legal Additions LLC, 2011 WL 3156724 at *1 (finding that there was “no doubt” that 6 || actual notice of the motion was provided to defendants through ECF). Additionally, Cloudstyle 7 claims that the Court should not grant Penson’s renewed motion “without determining the identity 8 of Cloudstyle, Yun Duan, and the Amazon seller account (seller ID ABVOXG9QDS52NV), 9 || because it would deprive Yun Duan’s due process right to defend and argue for itself.” ECF No. 10 118 at 6. Cloudstyle points to no persuasive authority to support this proposition. Indeed, 11 Cloudstyle’s only cited authority is an unreported case from another district concerning due 12 || process and the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Jd. 13 For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Penson’s renewed motion for an assignment 14 || order. IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 Dated: November 28, 2023 .

M JON S. A 18 nited States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28