The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry v. California State Grange

Filing 189

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 3/9/2017 GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 178 Plaintiff's Motion for Order of Assignment. (Kirksey Smith, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 13 NATIONAL GRANGE OF THE ORDER OF PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY, Plaintiff, 14 15 16 17 18 CIV. NO. 2:14-676 WBS DB ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT ORDER v. CALIFORNIA GUILD, formerly doing business as “California State Grange,” Defendant. 19 ----oo0oo---- 20 21 On September 12, 2016, the court ordered defendant 22 California Guild (“Guild”) to pay plaintiff National Grange of 23 the Order of Patrons of Husbandry $144,715.70 in attorneys’ fees 24 (“fees order”). 25 Plaintiff now moves for an order assigning it the right to 26 collect payments due to defendant from its local chapters to 27 satisfy the court’s fees order. 28 (Sept. 12, 2016 Order (Docket No. 154).) (Pl.’s Mot. (Docket No. 178.) Plaintiff brought this action against defendant for 1 1 trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair 2 competition under the Lanham Act. 3 court granted summary judgment to plaintiff on July 14, 2015, 4 (July 14, 2015 Order (Docket No. 60)), and enjoined defendant 5 “from using marks containing the word ‘Grange’” on September 29, 6 2015 (“September 2015 order”), (Sept. 29, 2015 Order (Docket No. 7 85)). 8 9 (Compl. (Docket No. 1).) The On April 20, 2016, the court found defendant in “deliberate and willful” violation of the September 2015 order 10 (“April 2016 order”). 11 Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), the court awarded plaintiff 12 attorneys’ fees incurred from various motions and affidavits it 13 had filed for the purpose of enforcing the September 2015 order. 14 (See id. at 38-39.) 15 (Apr. 20, 2016 Order (Docket No. 138).) On September 12, 2016, the court determined the amount 16 of fees awarded under the April 2016 order to be $144,715.70. 17 (Sept. 12, 2016 Order at 23.) 18 plaintiff the fees awarded and “file an affidavit with the court 19 confirming payment within fourteen (14) business days.” The court ordered defendant to pay (Id.) 20 On September 19, 2016, defendant filed a declaration 21 stating that it “is unable to comply with the [court’s] Fee[s] 22 Order” because “[m]ost of the funds [it holds] are subject to a 23 preliminary injunction issued in [a] State Court Action” the 24 parties are involved in. 25 Decl.”) ¶¶ 2, 4 (Docket No. 155).) 26 defendant does not dispute, that defendant has not paid any 27 portion of the court’s fees order to date. 28 (“Pl.’s Mem.”) at 4 (Docket No. 178-1); McFarland Decl. ¶ 2.) (Decl. of Robert McFarland (“McFarland 2 Plaintiff claims, and (Pl.’s Mot., Mem. 1 Plaintiff now moves for an order assigning it the right 2 to collect “all payments due or to become due to defendant” from 3 eighty-three of its local chapters to satisfy the court’s fees 4 order. (Pl.’s Mot. at 1.) 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(1) provides that 6 proceedings in aid of judgment or execution must comply with the 7 law of the state where the court is located. 8 69(a)(1); Credit Suisse v. U.S. District Court, 130 F.3d 1342, 9 1344 (9th Cir. 1997). Fed. R. Civ. P. Under California Civil Procedure Code 10 section 708.510 (“section 708.510”), “the court may order the 11 judgment debtor to assign to the judgment creditor . . . all or 12 part of a right to payment due or to become due, whether or not 13 the right is conditioned on future developments . . . .” 14 Civ. Proc. Code § 708.510(a); Peterson v. Islamic Republic of 15 Iran, 627 F.3d 1117, 1130–31 (9th Cir. 2010). 16 Cal. In considering whether to issue an assignment order 17 under section 708.510, the court “may take into consideration all 18 relevant factors,” including “the reasonable requirements of the 19 judgment debtor who is a natural person,” other “[p]ayments the 20 judgment debtor is required to make,” “the amount remaining due 21 on the money judgment,” and “[t]he amount being received or to be 22 received in satisfaction of the right to payment that may be 23 assigned.” 24 Int’l, Inc. v. Dostel Corp., M.C. No. 2:11–45 WBS GGH, 2013 WL 25 1324280, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2013). 26 assignment order does not demand “[d]etailed evidentiary 27 support,” Choice Hotels, 2013 WL 1324280, at *1, a judgment 28 creditor must describe the source of the right to payment with Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 708.510(c); Choice Hotels, 3 While a motion for an 1 “some degree of concreteness,” Icho v. PacketSwitch.com, Inc., 2 Civ. No. 01–20858 LHK PSG, 2012 WL 4343834, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 3 Sept.21, 2012). 4 Plaintiff identifies two types of payments made by 5 defendant’s local chapters to defendant: (1) membership dues, and 6 (2) loan payments. 7 (Pl.’s Mem. at 1.) With respect to membership dues, plaintiff represents 8 that local chapters paid dues to defendant in 2016 and “are 9 expected to continue to pay dues to [defendant]” going forward. 10 (Decl. of Holly Lance (“Lance Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-4 (Docket No. 178-2).) 11 Defendant does not dispute that it received dues in 2016 and will 12 continue to receive dues going forward. 13 5, 8 (stating that defendant received “$14,259.64 in membership 14 dues” for the previous quarter and referring to dues as a 15 “continuing source[] of income” for defendant).) 16 bylaws confirm that the dues defendant receives are paid by local 17 chapters. 18 (Docket No. 181-1).) 19 to defendant are a sufficiently concrete source of payment to 20 justify an assignment order. 21 (See McFarland Decl. ¶¶ Defendant’s (See Pl.’s Reply Ex. A, Cal. Guild Bylaws ¶ 10.3 The dues paid by defendant’s local chapters With respect to loan payments, plaintiff represents 22 that four of the eighty-three local chapters listed in its Motion 23 “are making regular loan payments to [defendant].” 24 ¶ 5.) 25 from local chapters in 2016, (see McFarland Decl. ¶ 7), but 26 opposes the assignment of future loan payments on grounds that 27 there is currently a preliminary injunction in the parties’ state 28 court action requiring that such payments be “paid into escrow,” (Lance Decl. Defendant does not dispute that it received loan payments 4 1 (see Def.’s Opp’n at 2 (Docket No. 180)). 2 Plaintiff correctly notes, however, that the state 3 court injunction is limited to payments made pursuant to loans 4 that originated on or prior to April 5, 2013, when the parties 5 split off from each other. 6 181); Def.’s Opp’n Ex. 1, State Ct. Prelim. Inj. Order at 1-2 7 (Docket No. 180).1) 8 notes indicating that defendant made loans to local chapters 9 after April 5, 2013. (See Pl.’s Reply Ex. B, Promissory Notes 10 (Docket No. 181-1).) Plaintiff only seeks assignment of payments 11 made pursuant to post-April 5, 2013 loans. 12 Because defendant has provided no evidence indicating that 13 payments made pursuant to post-April 5, 2013 loans are subject to 14 any encumbrance, the court finds that such payments are also 15 sufficiently concrete to justify an assignment order. 16 (See Pl.’s Reply at 2-3 (Docket No. Plaintiff has provided copies of promissory (Pl.’s Reply at 2.) The factors set forth in section 708.510(c) indicate 17 that an assignment order is proper here. 18 any part of the court’s $144,715.70 fees order to date and has 19 not alerted the court to any judgments or assignments, save the 20 state court injunction discussed above, that it is required to 21 satisfy. 22 23 Defendant has not paid Defendant states in its Supplemental Opposition that assigning payments from its local chapters to plaintiff will put 24 1 25 26 27 28 The court hereby takes judicial notice of the state court’s preliminary injunction order pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. See U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (Federal courts “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.”). 5 1 it out of operation. 2 188).) 3 of operation, however, is not in itself an adequate reason to 4 deny plaintiff’s Motion. 5 FiberLight, LLC, No. 14-CV-00728-SI, 2016 WL 7188008, at *4 (N.D. 6 Cal. Dec. 12, 2016) (granting section 708.510 motion despite 7 potential that assignment of payments “will . . . impair the 8 [debtor] company’s ability to manage ongoing operations”); 9 Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N2G Distrib., Inc., No. SACV 12-717 (Def.’s Supplemental Opp’n at 2 (Docket No. That the court’s assignment order may put defendant out See Telecom Asset Mgmt., LLC v. 10 ABC (EX), 2014 WL 10384606, at *5 (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2014) 11 (granting section 708.510 motion despite debtor’s representation 12 that assignment of payments will “drive [him] out of business” 13 and “extinguish[]” such payments). 14 Defendant also suggests in its Supplemental Opposition 15 that its nonprofit status should somehow exempt it from section 16 708.510’s reach. 17 the court is not aware of a case that has directly addressed 18 section 708.510 in the context of nonprofit organizations, 19 nothing in section 708.510, or any authority that the court has 20 found, exempts nonprofit organizations from section 708.510’s 21 reach. 22 (See Def.’s Supplemental Opp’n at 3.) While Because other factors set forth in section 708.510(c) 23 justify an assignment order here, and because the membership dues 24 and payments made pursuant to post-April 5, 2013 loans discussed 25 in this Order are sufficiently concrete sources of payment, the 26 court will grant plaintiff’s Motion with respect to membership 27 dues and payments made pursuant to post-April 5, 2013 loans. 28 court will deny plaintiff’s Motion to the extent it seeks 6 The 1 assignment of other payments local chapters may owe to defendant, 2 which plaintiff did not specifically address in its Motion. 3 UMG Recordings, Inc. v. BCD Music Grp., Inc., No. CV07-05808 SJO 4 FFMX, 2009 WL 2213678, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2009) (noting 5 that “failure to identify . . . specific assets” may be grounds 6 for denial of assignment). 7 See IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for an 8 assignment order be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED IN PART as 9 follows: 10 (1) All membership dues due to defendant now or in the 11 future from the local chapters listed on pages one 12 through four of plaintiff’s Motion (Docket No. 178) are 13 hereby assigned to plaintiff to the extent necessary to 14 satisfy the court’s fees order (Docket No. 154). 15 (2) All payments due to defendant now or in the future 16 pursuant to loans defendant made after April 5, 2013 to 17 the local chapters listed on pages one through four of 18 plaintiff’s Motion are hereby assigned to plaintiff to 19 the extent necessary to satisfy the court’s fees order. 20 (3) Defendant is hereby enjoined from assigning or 21 otherwise disposing of the payments discussed in (1) 22 and (2) to any other person or entity until it has 23 satisfied the court’s fees order. 24 (4) Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED in all other respects. 25 (5) Counsel for plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order 26 on the local chapters listed on pages one through four 27 of plaintiff’s Motion. 28 7 1 Dated: March 9, 2017 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?