Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Saddeldin et al

Filing 29

ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's 25 Motion for Appointment of Receiver of Liquor Licenses Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 708.610 and Rule 66 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/10/2011. (Bradley, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC.,
11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14
15

ADNAN MOHAMMED SADDELDIN,
et al.,

16
Defendants.
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:09-cv-02197 AWI GSA
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
RECEIVER OF LIQUOR LICENSES
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 708.610
AND RULE 66 OF THE FEDERAL RULES
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
(Document 25)

18
19
20

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., a closed-circuit distributor of sports and

21

entertainment programming, filed its complaint for violations of the telecommunication statutes

22

(47 U.S.C. §§ 553 & 605) on December 18, 2009. Plaintiff had the exclusive commercial

23

exhibition licensing rights to the Ultimate Fighting Championship 92: “The Ultimate 2008” (the

24

“Program”) which was broadcast on December 27, 2008. Plaintiff entered into sublicensing

25

agreements with various commercial entities wherein payment of a commercial sublicense fee

26

allowed for broadcast of the Program. (See Docs. 1 & 17.)

27
28

Defendants Adnan Mohammed Saddeldin, Jay P. Ghazal and Allen Martin Ormonde are
the alleged owners, operators, or licensees of the Samba Brazilian Steak House aka Samba
1

1

Brazilian BBQ. On December 27, 2008, Plaintiff’s investigator, Armando Torrez, observed the

2

Program at their establishment in Fresno, California. However, Defendants had not obtained a

3

sublicense from Plaintiff. (Doc. 17, 17-3.)

4

When Defendants did not answer or otherwise appear in this action following proper

5

service1 of Plaintiff’s summons and complaint, the Clerk of the Court entered default against

6

Defendants. (Doc. 13.) Thereafter, Plaintiff moved for default judgment on April 10, 2010.

7

(Doc. 17.) On May 14, 2010, this Court issued Findings and Recommendations that Plaintiff’s

8

application for default judgment be granted. (Doc. 20.) No party filed objections. On June 16,

9

2010, the Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full. (Doc. 21.) Judgment was

10
11

entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants in the sum of $30,750.00. (Docs. 20-21.)
Plaintiff brings the instant motion requesting the Court appoint a receiver to take

12

possession and sell Defendants’ alcoholic beverage licenses to provide for payment of the

13

judgment. (Doc. 25.)2

14

DISCUSSION

15

Rule 69(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the execution of final

16

judgments and states that a “money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution . . . [and][t]he

17

procedure on execution - and in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of judgment or

18

execution - must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is located, but a federal

19

statute governs to the extent it applies.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a)(1). Thus, the Court must first

20

determine whether a federal statute applies to an appointment of a receiver in aid of enforcing a

21

judgment.

22
23
24
1

25
26
27

Plaintiff’s process server made several attempts to personally serve Defendants at their place of business.
(See Docs. 8-10.) Subsequently, on January 25, 2010, Plaintiff’s process server served Defendants by substitute
service, leaving copies of the Summons in a Civil Case, Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet, Certification as to Interested
Parties, and Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference with Tim Doe, the person in charge. In addition,
copies of the aforementioned documents were deposited into the United States Mail the following day. (Docs. 8-10.)
2

28

On April 5, 2011, this matter was referred to the undersigned “for entry of an order resolving the pending
motion for the appointment of a receiver” by Chief United States District Judge Anthony W . Ishii. (Doc. 26.)

2

1

Rule 66 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the appointment of receivers.3

2

The Ninth Circuit has held that because “[t]he federal rules, including Rule 66, qualify as federal

3

statutes under Rule 69( a) [,] . . . Rule 66 prevails over any state law to the extent it applies.”

4

Office Depot, Inc. v. Zuccarini, 596 F.3d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal citations omitted).

5

Notwithstanding, when the federal statute is a general procedural rule, specific state statutes

6

addressing the particular procedure at issue apply. See id. at 701- 703. Therefore, “‘state law has

7

been applied under Rule 69(a) to . . . appointment of receivers,’ when such actions are

8

undertaken in aid of executing a judgment.” Id. at 700. Because California has a specific statute

9

governing the appointment of a receiver of a liquor license, the court looks to California law to

10

determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to have such a receiver appointed. See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code

11

§ 708.630(a) (“The judgment debtor’s interest in an alcoholic beverage license may be applied to

12

the satisfaction of a money judgment only as provided in this section”).

13

Under California law, the alcoholic beverage license of a judgment debtor is subject to

14

enforcement of a money judgment. See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code §§ 708.630, 695.010(a), 699.710;

15

Office Depot, Inc. v. Zuccarini, 596 F.3d at 701. “The court may appoint a receiver . . . where

16

the judgment creditor shows that considering the interests of both the judgment creditor and the

17

judgment debtor, the appointment of a receiver is a reasonable method to obtain the fair and

18

orderly satisfaction of the judgment.” Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 708.620. However, when the

19

receiver is appointed for the purpose of transferring the judgment debtor’s interest in an alcoholic

20

beverage license, California Code of Civil Procedure section 708.630 limits this power if “the

21

judgment debtor shows in the proceeding to appoint a receiver that the amount of delinquent

22

taxes . . . and claims of creditors with priority over the judgment creditor exceed the probable

23

sale price of the license." Id. § 708.630(b).

24
25

Here, the Court finds that plaintiff has shown that appointment of a receiver of
Defendants' alcoholic beverage licenses is a reasonable method to obtain satisfaction of the

26
27
28

3
Rule 66 provides: “These rules govern an action in which the appointment of a receiver is sought or a
receiver sues or is sued. But the practice in administering an estate by a receiver or a similar court-appointed officer
must accord with the historical practice in federal courts or with a local rule. An action in which a receiver has been
appointed may be dismissed only by court order.”

3

1

judgment. Plaintiff represents that following entry of judgment, it has sent post-judgment

2

discovery to Defendants in an attempt to obtain payment to satisfy the judgment. (Doc. 25-2 at

3

5.) Defendants have ignored these discovery requests and have refused payment of the judgment.

4

(Id.) Plaintiff consulted the License Query System website maintained by the California

5

Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and identified two licenses:

6

1.

License Number 432464
Primary Owner: Brazilian BBQ, Inc.
Business Name: Samba Brazilian BBQ, Inc.
Company Officer Information: Adnan Mohammed Saddeldin,
director or general manager; Jay P. Ghazal, president/treasurer; and
Allen Martin Ormonde, secretary.

2.

License Number 310166
Primary Owner: Jay P. Ghazal
Business Name: By the Sea
Licensee Information: Jay P. Ghazal

7
8
9
10
11
12

(See Doc. 25-3 at 18-22.) Plaintiff’s counsel also avers that based on his experience, “installing a

13

keeper at Defendants’ place of business would be [a] burdensome and expensive” alternative to

14

collection on the liquor licenses. (Doc. 25-2 at 5.) Finally, Defendants have failed to respond to

15

any of Plaintiff’s motions, including the instant motion. Accordingly, this Court finds that,

16

considering the interests of both parties, Plaintiff is entitled to have a receiver appointed to take

17

possession and control of Defendants’ alcoholic beverage licenses, numbers 432464 and 310166.

18

See J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Bachman, 2011 WL 1376605 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2011); J & J

19

Sports Prods., Inc. v. Huezo, 2011 WL 1134265 (N.D. Cal. March 25, 2011).

20
21

In sum, Plaintiff has shown the appointment of a receiver is a reasonable method to
obtain satisfaction of its judgment.

22

CONCLUSION

23

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

24

1.

25

is GRANTED;

26

//

27

//

28

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of a receiver in aid of enforcement of judgment

//
4

1

2.

The Court appoints ROBERT A. HAWKINS, JAMES E. SALVEN, or SHERYL

2

A. STRAIN as receiver to perform the duties and responsibilities set forth in this Order and

3

whom shall be compensated at the expense of Defendants, by a percentage to be determined

4

based upon the amount recovered from the sale of the alcoholic beverage licenses;

5
6

3.

The receiver shall have the following duties and powers pursuant to Rule 66 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and California Code of Civil Procedure section 708.630:

7

A.

To take possession and control of Defendants’ alcoholic

8

beverage license bearing the number 432464 in accordance with

9

the California Business and Professions Code and applicable

10

regulations of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage

11

Control;

12

B.

13

Ghazal’s alcoholic beverage license bearing the number 310166 in

14

accordance with the California Business and Professions Code and

15

applicable regulations of the California Department of Alcoholic

16

Beverage Control;

17

C.

18

Beverage Control the surrender of the alcoholic beverage licenses

19

under Title 4 of the California Administrative Code section 65;

20

D.

21

necessary, to place the alcoholic beverage licenses on the market

22

for purposes of a competitive sale;

23

E.

24

necessary, to aid and assist in the sale of the alcoholic beverage

25

licenses;

26

F.

27

all, distribute the balance of the funds to Plaintiff first, and

28

thereafter to other creditors, if any;

To take possession and control of Defendant Jay P.

To file with the California Department of Alcoholic

To retain the services of a business opportunity broker, if

To retain the services of an attorney and an accountant, if

To proceed with the sales, pay any priority tax liens, if at

5

1

4.

Defendants are restrained from:

2

A.

The sale, transfer, or other disposition of the licenses; and

3

B.

Any act to interfere with the receiver’s efforts to sell the licenses.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated:
6i0kij

May 10, 2011

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6