Hendricks & Lewis PLLC v. George Clinton

Filing 286

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION UNDER RULE 69 FOR RELEASE OF LEVIES, STAY OF ENFORCEMENT, AND FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF INSTALLMENT PAYMENT PLAN 269 . The Court has now adjudicated on all pending matters in this action. The Clerk of Court shall close this case by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.). (lc). Modified on 12/5/2014 (lc).

O
JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

HENDRICKS & LEWIS PLLC,

12
13
14

Case No. 2:10-cv-09921-ODW(PLAx)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

GEORGE CLINTON,

15

Defendant,

MOTION UNDER RULE 69 FOR
RELEASE OF LEVIES, STAY OF

16

ENFORCEMENT, AND FOR

17

IMPLEMENTATION OF

18

INSTALLMENT PAYMENT PLAN

19

[269]

20

The Court incorporates its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Plaintiff

21

Hendricks & Lewis PLLC’s Assignment Motion into this Order. (ECF No. 284.) The

22

Court DENIES Defendant George Clinton’s Motion Under Rule 69 for Release of

23

Levies, Stay of Enforcement, and for Implementation of Installment Payment Plan.

24

(ECF No. 269.)

25

The Court finds that the property levied by H&L is subject to enforcement. See

26

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 699.710. Furthermore, Clinton’s exemption arguments are

27

either unpersuasive or inconsistent.

28

should be released against the royalty accounts for The C Kunzpyruhzy, LLC and A

For example, Clinton argues that the levies

1

Scoop Of Poop Productions, Inc. because they are “wholly separate and non-debtor

2

corporate entities.” (ECF No. 269 at 7.) But later in his own Motion, Clinton seeks

3

an installment payment plan where the apparently non-debtor entities will pay the

4

judgment Clinton owes. (Id. at 8.)

5

In addition, the Court, in its discretion, declines to stay enforcement as this

6

matter has been in flux for far too long. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 918.5. Finally,

7

the Court is disinclined to implement Clinton’s proposed installment payment plan.

8

The Court has always encouraged a non-judicial resolution of this matter, but those

9

efforts have been unsuccessful. H&L is within its rights to enforce the judgment in

10

the manner it is has chosen here.

11

For the reasons discussed above, Clinton’s Motion to Release Levies, Stay

12

Enforcement, and Implement Installment Payment Plan is DENIED. The Court has

13

now adjudicated on all pending matters in this action. The Clerk of Court shall close

14

this case.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

December 5, 2014

18
19
20

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2