Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Rodriguez et al

Filing 29

ORDER granting renewal of judgment and renewal of judgment re: 28 MOTION for Default Judgment by the Clerk as to Defendants, Renewal of Judgment filed by Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd.. Signed by Judge James Ware on February 2, 2012. (jwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
NO. C 02-00981 MJJ

Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd.,

11

ORDER GRANTING RENEWAL OF
JUDGMENT AND RENEWAL OF
JUDGMENT

Plaintiff,
v.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
Israel R. Rodriguez, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14

/

15

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application for Renewal of Judgment.1 Pursuant to a

16

timely and properly filed application, Plaintiff moves to renew a September 17, 2002 and an October

17

2, 2002 judgment.2 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a); Cal. Code Civ. P. §§ 683.110, et seq.

18
19

Plaintiff seeks a judgment of $6,748.12, which includes the original judgment amount of
$5,487.50, plus $1,260.62 in interest3 accrued since entry of the original judgment.

20
21
22
23
24

1

(Application and Declaration for Renewal of Judgment, hereafter, “Application,” Docket
Item No. 28.)
2

25
26
27
28

On September 17, 2002, the Court granted Plaintiff default judgment in the amount of
$2,250.00. (See Application, Ex. 1, Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment;
Reducing Damages, Docket Item No. 28-1; see also Docket Item No. 21.) On October 2, 2002, the
Court granted Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees and costs in the amount of $3,237.50. (See
Application, Ex. 1, Order Granting Plaintiff’s Request for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Pursuant to 47
U.S.C. § 605, Docket Item No. 28-1; see also Docket Item No. 23.)
3

Calculated at an interest rate of 2.5%.

1

The Court finds that Plaintiff has properly moved to renew judgment under Cal. Code Civ. P.

2

§§ 683.110, et seq. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Application for Renewal of

3

Judgment.

4

The Court hereby enters judgment in favor of Plaintiff Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. and

5

against Defendants Israel R. Rodriguez, individually d/b/a Altamar Restaurant, and Maria

6

Rodriguez, individually d/b/a Altamar Restaurant, in the amount of $5,487.50, plus $1,260.62 in

7

interest, for a total judgment of $6,748.12.4

8
9
Dated: February 2, 2012
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

4

27

Under California law, “there is no statutory requirement that the notice of renewal [of
judgment] be served on the judgment debtor in order for the renewal to be effective.” See Goldman
v. Simpson, 160 Cal. App. 4th 255, 262 n.4 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).

28

2

1

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

2

David J. Cook [e-mail]
Thomas Peter Riley [e-mail]

3
4

Dated: February 2, 2012

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

5
By:
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

/s/ JW Chambers
Susan Imbriani
Courtroom Deputy