Rodas v. Creditors Specialty Service, Inc.

Filing 62

ORDER denying 57 Motion to Enforce Settlement or in the Alternative to Compel Responses to Post-Judgment Discovery signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 8/2/13. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

VICTOR RODAS,

11

14

2:11-cv-209-JAM-DAD

Plaintiff,

12
13

No.

v.
CREDITORS SPECIALTY SERVICE,
INC., et al.,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE TO COMPEL RESPONSES
TO POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY

Defendants.

15
16

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Victor Rodas’s

17

(“Plaintiff”) Motion to Enforce Settlement or in the Alternative

18

to Compel Responses to Post-Judgment Discovery (Doc. #57).1

19

Defendant Creditors Specialty Service, Inc. (“Defendant”) opposes

20

the motion (Doc. #59) and Plaintiff replied (Doc. #61).
This action stems from Plaintiff’s allegations that

21
22

Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the

23

Fair Credit Reporting Act.

24

of judgment on December 11, 2012 (Doc. #48) and successfully

25

moved for attorneys’ fees (Doc. #52).

Plaintiff accepted Defendant’s offer

The parties agree that

26
27
28

1

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled
for July 24, 2013.
1

1

Plaintiff is entitled to payment in the amount of $17,000 –

2

$2,000 for the statutory claims pursuant to the settlement and

3

$15,000 for attorneys’ fees.

4

In an attempt to enforce the settlement and collect on the

5

judgment, Plaintiff served post-judgment discovery requests on

6

Defendant’s counsel on March 13, 2013.

7

response to his discovery requests and the judgment remains

8

unpaid.

9

order directing Defendant to pay the judgment or, in the

10
11

Plaintiff received no

Plaintiff brought the present motion to obtain a court

alternative, compel responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.
Defendant opposes the motion on the grounds that the

12

judgment needs to be enforced directly against the judgment

13

debtor, which means that all post-judgment discovery must be

14

served directly on Defendant, not Defendant’s counsel.

15

does not dispute that the judgment is otherwise valid and

16

enforceable, but argues that Plaintiff must proceed through a

17

writ of execution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) and

18

California law, which he has not done.

19

under both the federal rules and California law, post-judgment

20

discovery is properly served on a judgment debtor’s counsel.

21

Defendant

Plaintiff responds that

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] money

22

judgment is enforced by a writ of execution . . . .

The

23

procedure on execution . . . must accord with the procedure of

24

the state where the court is located . . . .”

25

69(a)(1).

26

with the federal rules or state law.

27

“[W]here state rules of practice and procedure do not specify the

28

method of service in supplementary proceedings [under Rule 69],

Fed. R. Civ. P.

Post-judgment discovery may be sought in accordance

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2).

1

the federal rules govern.”

2

372–73 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (citing Rumsey v. George E. Failing Co.,

3

333 F.2d 960, 962 (10th Cir. 1964)).

4

Civil Procedure sections that govern post-judgment service of

5

process require service directly to the judgment debtor instead

6

of the attorney for the judgment debtor.

7

§ 684.020(a).

8
9

Cerami v. Robinson, 85 F.R.D. 371,

In California, the Code of

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code

In this case, it is clear that California has a specific
process that governs service of all post-judgment papers,

10

requiring that they be served on the judgment debtor directly.

11

Since California has a specific rule, Federal Rule of Civil

12

Procedure 5, which requires service on the judgment debtor’s

13

attorney of record, is inapplicable.

14

73.

15

Procedure § 684.010, post-judgment papers must be served on a

16

party’s attorney.

17

attorney for the judgment creditor, but Defendant is the judgment

18

debtor in this case.

19

properly served, there is accordingly no basis upon which to

20

compel Defendant’s response.

21

Cerami, 85 F.R.D. at 372-

Plaintiff also argues that under California Code of Civil

That section, however, only applies to the

Because the discovery requests were not

Plaintiff’s motion is not supported by citation to

22

applicable authority so it is accordingly DENIED.

Plaintiff must

23

enforce his judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil

24

Procedure 69 and the relevant California statutes.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: August 2, 2013

____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
3