Walter Rosales, et al. v. The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego, et al.

S.D. California

Walter Rosales, et al. v. The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego, et al.

District Court, S.D. California·Decided June 22, 2026·No. 3:23-cv-00908·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WALTER ROSALES, et al. Case No.: 23-cv-00908-AGS-JLB Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING CONDON- v. 13 JOHNSON ASSOCIATES’ MOTION THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF FOR A JUDGMENT DEBTOR 14 SAN DIEGO, et al., EXAM 15 Defendants.

16 [ECF No. 106] 17 18 On May 9, 2026, Defendant and Judgment Creditor Condon-Johnson Associates, Inc. 19 filed a Motion for a Judgment Debtor Exam and Production of Documents from Judgment 20 Debtor and plaintiff counsel Patrick Webb. (ECF No. 106.) For the reasons set forth 21 below, the Court GRANTS Judgment Creditor’s motion. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 In this matter, the District Judge entered an Amended Clerk’s Judgment for 24 compensatory sanctions payable, inter alia, to defendant Condon-Johnson Associates, Inc., 25 by plaintiff’s law firm, Webb and Carey, in the amount of $119,509. (ECF Nos. 39, 58 26 (“The Court holds plaintiffs, their attorney, and their attorney’s firm jointly liable for 27 paying the assessed penalty. Plaintiffs are sanctioned under the Court’s inherent authority, 28 1 their attorney under all three bases for sanctions , and the firm under Rule 11.”), 59, 89, 2 96.) The docket reflects no prior requests for debtor examinations in this matter. 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 A. Applicable Law 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 authorizes federal courts to enforce a money 6 judgment by writ of execution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1). “The procedure on execution-- 7 and in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of judgment or execution--must accord 8 with the procedure of the state where the court is located, but a federal statute governs to 9 the extent it applies.” Id. Accordingly, in ruling on Judgment Creditor’s motion, the Court 10 follows California’s statutory provisions for the enforcement of judgments, known 11 collectively as the Enforcement of Judgments Law, as set forth in California Code of Civil 12 Procedure §§ 680.010 through 724.260. 13 Judgment debtor proceedings under California law “permit the judgment creditor to 14 examine the judgment debtor, or third persons who have property of or are indebted to the 15 judgment debtor, in order to discover property and apply it toward the satisfaction of the 16 money judgment.” Imperial Bank v. Pim Elec., Inc., 39 Cal. Rptr. 2d 432, 437 (Ct. App. 17 1995). Debtor examinations are intended “to allow the judgment creditor a wide scope of 18 inquiry concerning property and business affairs of the judgment debtor,” Hooser v. 19 Superior Court, 101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 341, 345 (Ct. App. 2000), disapproved on other grounds 20 by Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531 (2017), and “to leave no stone unturned in 21 the search for assets which might be used to satisfy the judgment,” Troy v. Superior Court, 22 231 Cal. Rptr. 108, 112 (Ct. App. 1986). 23 California Code of Civil Procedure § 708.110 provides: 24 (a) The judgment creditor may apply to the proper court for an order requiring the judgment debtor to appear before the court, or before a referee 25 appointed 26 27 1 The Ninth Circuit affirmed the sanctions on the bases of Rule 11 and the court’s 28 1 by the court, at a time and place specified in the order, to furnish information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment. 2

3 (b) If the judgment creditor has not caused the judgment debtor to be examined under this section during the preceding 120 days, the court shall 4 make the order upon ex parte application of the judgment creditor. 5 (c) If the judgment creditor has caused the judgment debtor to be examined 6 under this section during the preceding 120 days, the court shall make the 7 order if the judgment creditor by affidavit of otherwise shows good cause for the order. The application shall be made on noticed motion if the court so 8 directs or a court rule so requires. Otherwise, it may be made ex parte. 9 (d) The judgment creditor shall personally serve a copy of the order on the 10 judgment debtor not less than 10 days before the date set for examination. 11 Service shall be made in the manner specified in Section 145.10. Service of the order creates a lien on the personal property of the judgment debtor for a 12 period of one year from the date of the order unless extended or sooner 13 terminated by the court.

14 (e) The order shall contain the following statement in 14-point boldface type 15 if printed or in capital letters if typed: “NOTICE TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR. If you fail to appear at the time and place specified in this order, you may be 16 subject to arrest and punishment for contempt of court and the court may 17 make an order requiring you to pay the reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the judgment creditor in this proceeding.” 18 19 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 708.110(a)–(e). Additionally, California Code of Civil Procedure 20 § 491.150(b) provides: 21 (b) A person sought to be examined may not be required to attend an examination before a court located outside the county in which the person 22 resides or has a place of business unless the distance from the person’s place 23 of residence or place of business to the place of examination is less than 150 miles. 24

25 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 491.150(b). 26 B. Analysis 27 Judgment Creditor requests an order requiring Judgment Debtor to appear and 28 furnish information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment. (ECF No. 106.) 1 The docket in this case coupled with the form request signed under penalty of perjury 2 establish the requirements of: (1) California Civil Procedure Code § 708.110(a) that 3 Judgment Debtor owes Judgment Creditor an unpaid debt; (2) California Civil Procedure 4 Code § 708.110(b) that he has not examined Judgment Debtor within the last 120 days; 5 and (3) California Civil Procedure Code § 409.150(b) that Judgment Debtor resides in the 6 county where the court is located. (Id.) 7 III. CONCLUSION 8 Based on the foregoing, Judgment Creditor’s Motion for a Judgment Debtor Exam 9 is GRANTED. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 10 1. Judgment Debtor shall appear on August 5, 2026, at 10:00 AM in the Jury 11 Assembly Room, Room 203, James M. Carter & Judith N. Keep United States 12 Courthouse, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, California 92101, to furnish 13 information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment against Judgment 14 Debtor; 15 2. Judgment Creditor must personally serve this order upon Judgment Debtor 16 within ten days before the date set for the examination and must file a 17 certificate of service with the Court. 18 NOTICE TO JUDMENT DEBTOR: IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT THE 19 TIME AND PLACE SPECIFIED IN THIS ORDER, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO 20 ARREST AND PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AND THE COURT 21 MAY MAKE AN ORDER REQUIRING YOU TO PAY THE REAONABLE 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 || ATTORNEYS’ FEES INCURRED BY THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR IN THIS 2 || PROCEEDING.’ 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: June 22, 2026 - bande 6 n. Jill L. Burkhardt 5 ited States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 |, 28 This notice is furnished pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 708.110(e).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WALTER ROSALES, et al. Case No.: 23-cv-00908-AGS-JLB Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING CONDON- v. 13 JOHNSON ASSOCIATES’ MOTION THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF FOR A JUDGMENT DEBTOR 14 SAN DIEGO, et al., EXAM 15 Defendants.

16 [ECF No. 106] 17 18 On May 9, 2026, Defendant and Judgment Creditor Condon-Johnson Associates, Inc. 19 filed a Motion for a Judgment Debtor Exam and Production of Documents from Judgment 20 Debtor and plaintiff counsel Patrick Webb. (ECF No. 106.) For the reasons set forth 21 below, the Court GRANTS Judgment Creditor’s motion. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 In this matter, the District Judge entered an Amended Clerk’s Judgment for 24 compensatory sanctions payable, inter alia, to defendant Condon-Johnson Associates, Inc., 25 by plaintiff’s law firm, Webb and Carey, in the amount of $119,509. (ECF Nos. 39, 58 26 (“The Court holds plaintiffs, their attorney, and their attorney’s firm jointly liable for 27 paying the assessed penalty. Plaintiffs are sanctioned under the Court’s inherent authority, 28 1 their attorney under all three bases for sanctions , and the firm under Rule 11.”), 59, 89, 2 96.) The docket reflects no prior requests for debtor examinations in this matter. 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 A. Applicable Law 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 authorizes federal courts to enforce a money 6 judgment by writ of execution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1). “The procedure on execution-- 7 and in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of judgment or execution--must accord 8 with the procedure of the state where the court is located, but a federal statute governs to 9 the extent it applies.” Id. Accordingly, in ruling on Judgment Creditor’s motion, the Court 10 follows California’s statutory provisions for the enforcement of judgments, known 11 collectively as the Enforcement of Judgments Law, as set forth in California Code of Civil 12 Procedure §§ 680.010 through 724.260. 13 Judgment debtor proceedings under California law “permit the judgment creditor to 14 examine the judgment debtor, or third persons who have property of or are indebted to the 15 judgment debtor, in order to discover property and apply it toward the satisfaction of the 16 money judgment.” Imperial Bank v. Pim Elec., Inc., 39 Cal. Rptr. 2d 432, 437 (Ct. App. 17 1995). Debtor examinations are intended “to allow the judgment creditor a wide scope of 18 inquiry concerning property and business affairs of the judgment debtor,” Hooser v. 19 Superior Court, 101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 341, 345 (Ct. App. 2000), disapproved on other grounds 20 by Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531 (2017), and “to leave no stone unturned in 21 the search for assets which might be used to satisfy the judgment,” Troy v. Superior Court, 22 231 Cal. Rptr. 108, 112 (Ct. App. 1986). 23 California Code of Civil Procedure § 708.110 provides: 24 (a) The judgment creditor may apply to the proper court for an order requiring the judgment debtor to appear before the court, or before a referee 25 appointed 26 27 1 The Ninth Circuit affirmed the sanctions on the bases of Rule 11 and the court’s 28 1 by the court, at a time and place specified in the order, to furnish information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment. 2

3 (b) If the judgment creditor has not caused the judgment debtor to be examined under this section during the preceding 120 days, the court shall 4 make the order upon ex parte application of the judgment creditor. 5 (c) If the judgment creditor has caused the judgment debtor to be examined 6 under this section during the preceding 120 days, the court shall make the 7 order if the judgment creditor by affidavit of otherwise shows good cause for the order. The application shall be made on noticed motion if the court so 8 directs or a court rule so requires. Otherwise, it may be made ex parte. 9 (d) The judgment creditor shall personally serve a copy of the order on the 10 judgment debtor not less than 10 days before the date set for examination. 11 Service shall be made in the manner specified in Section 145.10. Service of the order creates a lien on the personal property of the judgment debtor for a 12 period of one year from the date of the order unless extended or sooner 13 terminated by the court.

14 (e) The order shall contain the following statement in 14-point boldface type 15 if printed or in capital letters if typed: “NOTICE TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR. If you fail to appear at the time and place specified in this order, you may be 16 subject to arrest and punishment for contempt of court and the court may 17 make an order requiring you to pay the reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the judgment creditor in this proceeding.” 18 19 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 708.110(a)–(e). Additionally, California Code of Civil Procedure 20 § 491.150(b) provides: 21 (b) A person sought to be examined may not be required to attend an examination before a court located outside the county in which the person 22 resides or has a place of business unless the distance from the person’s place 23 of residence or place of business to the place of examination is less than 150 miles. 24

25 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 491.150(b). 26 B. Analysis 27 Judgment Creditor requests an order requiring Judgment Debtor to appear and 28 furnish information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment. (ECF No. 106.) 1 The docket in this case coupled with the form request signed under penalty of perjury 2 establish the requirements of: (1) California Civil Procedure Code § 708.110(a) that 3 Judgment Debtor owes Judgment Creditor an unpaid debt; (2) California Civil Procedure 4 Code § 708.110(b) that he has not examined Judgment Debtor within the last 120 days; 5 and (3) California Civil Procedure Code § 409.150(b) that Judgment Debtor resides in the 6 county where the court is located. (Id.) 7 III. CONCLUSION 8 Based on the foregoing, Judgment Creditor’s Motion for a Judgment Debtor Exam 9 is GRANTED. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 10 1. Judgment Debtor shall appear on August 5, 2026, at 10:00 AM in the Jury 11 Assembly Room, Room 203, James M. Carter & Judith N. Keep United States 12 Courthouse, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, California 92101, to furnish 13 information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment against Judgment 14 Debtor; 15 2. Judgment Creditor must personally serve this order upon Judgment Debtor 16 within ten days before the date set for the examination and must file a 17 certificate of service with the Court. 18 NOTICE TO JUDMENT DEBTOR: IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT THE 19 TIME AND PLACE SPECIFIED IN THIS ORDER, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO 20 ARREST AND PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AND THE COURT 21 MAY MAKE AN ORDER REQUIRING YOU TO PAY THE REAONABLE 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 || ATTORNEYS’ FEES INCURRED BY THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR IN THIS 2 || PROCEEDING.’ 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: June 22, 2026 - bande 6 n. Jill L. Burkhardt 5 ited States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 |, 28 This notice is furnished pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 708.110(e).

Walter Rosales, et al. v. The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego, et al., (S.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Walter Rosales, et al. v. The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego, et al. (Walter Rosales, et al. v. The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related