Forreststream Holdings Limited v. Shenkman

Filing 377

ORDER GRANTING 353 Forreststream's Motion to Determine Claim of Exemption and DENYING Mr. Shenkman's Claim of Exemption.As set forth in the attached order, the court grants Forreststream's motion for a determination on Mr. Shenkman's claim of exemption and denies Mr. Shenkman's claim. The court further authorizes the U.S. Marshal to proceed with the sale of that certain 2011 Audi A8L in the Marshal's custody, immediately and not subject to any exemp tion. The court revises its earlier turnover order, ECF No. 357 , with respect to requiring Mr. Shenkman to cause GS&Co. to turn over $19,000 to Forreststream and orders instead that Mr. Shenkman cause GS&Co. to turn over $15,950 to Forreststream. The rest of the turnover order, ECF No. 357 , remains in effect. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on February 11, 2019. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

FORRESTSTREAM HOLDINGS
LIMITED,

12

Case No. 16-cv-01609-LB

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MR. SHENKMAN’S
CLAIM OF EXEMPTION

13
v.
14

Re: ECF No. 353
GREGORY SHENKMAN,

15

Defendant.
16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

The court assumes the reader’s familiarity with the subject matter and procedural history of

19

this case.1 Briefly stated, defendant Gregory Shenkman owes plaintiff Forreststream Holdings Ltd.

20

more than $5.3 million on the judgment in this case.2 Mr. Shenkman has not made any payments

21

toward this judgment in the 22 months since judgment was entered.3

22
23
24
For a fuller description of the subject matter and procedural history of this case, see the court’s
December 6, 2018 order. Forreststream Holdings Ltd. v. Shenkman, No. 16-cv-01609-LB, 2018 WL
6421866 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2018) (Order – ECF No. 339). Citations refer to material in the Electronic
Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.
1

25
26

2

See Mackintosh Third Aff. – ECF No. 314 at 2.

3

27

See Kampfner Decl. – ECF No. 329 at 2 (¶ 4).

28
ORDER – No. 16-cv-01609-LB

Mr. Shenkman made a claim of exemption in certain personal property subject to levy by the

1
2

U.S. Marshal. Forreststream filed a motion for the court to make a determination regarding Mr.

3

Shenkman’s claim of exemption. The court held a hearing on February 7, 2019. For the reasons

4

stated on the record at the hearing and discussed below, the court grants Forreststream’s motion

5

for a determination and denies Mr. Shenkman’s claim of exemption. The court further authorizes

6

the U.S. Marshal to proceed with the sale of the 2011 Audi A8L, vehicle-identification number

7

WAUAVAFD0BN000878, immediately and not subject to any exemption.

8
ANALYSIS

9

At the February 7 hearing, the parties agreed that the only remaining potential exemptions at

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

issue relate to certain artwork, watches, and cars.
With respect to artwork and watches, California Civil Procedure Code § 704.040 provides for

12
13

an aggregate exemption of no more than $8,000 for “[j]ewelry, heirlooms, and works of art.”4

14

Forreststream has agreed to release a certain watch to Mr. Shenkman worth more than the

15

maximum allowable $8,000 exemption. The parties agreed on the record at the February 7 hearing

16

that this satisfies any exemption Mr. Shenkman might have in artwork and watches.
With respect to cars, California Civil Procedure Code § 704.010 provides for an aggregate

17
18

exemption of no more than $3,050 for motor vehicles. Mr. Shenkman previously sold an Infiniti

19

JX35 SUV to CarMax for $19,000 and retained those proceeds (depositing them in an account

20

held by GS&Co., LLC). The court previously ordered Mr. Shenkman to cause GS&Co. to turn

21

over that $19,000 to Forreststream.5 Mr. Shenkman did not do so. As the $19,000 that Mr.

22

Shenkman failed to turn over well exceeds the maximum allowable $3,050 exemption, no further

23

exemption is warranted.

24
25
26
27

The exemption for “jewelry” is the only category that plausibly covers the watches in which Mr.
Shenkman claims an exemption.
4

5

Order – ECF No. 357 at 2–3.

28
ORDER – No. 16-cv-01609-LB

2

1

Forreststream agreed on the record at the February 7 hearing that the $19,000 turnover order

2

with respect to the Infiniti proceeds should be adjusted to account for the allowable $3,050

3

exemption. The court thus revises its earlier order and orders Mr. Shenkman to cause GS&Co. to

4

turn over $15,950 (as opposed to $19,000) to Forreststream.

5

The U.S. Marshal has custody of a 2011 Audi A8L, vehicle-identification number

6

WAUAVAFD0BN000878, belonging to Mr. Shenkman. Because the entirety of the allowable

7

$3,050 exemption for motor vehicles is being applied to the Infiniti, no exemption remains for the

8

Audi. The court authorizes the U.S. Marshal to proceed with the sale of the Audi immediately and

9

not subject to any exemption.

10
CONCLUSION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The court grants Forreststream’s motion for a determination and denies Mr. Shenkman’s claim

13

of exemption. The court further authorizes the U.S. Marshal to proceed with the sale of the 2011

14

Audi A8L, vehicle-identification number WAUAVAFD0BN000878, immediately and not subject

15

to any exemption.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: February 11, 2019
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER – No. 16-cv-01609-LB

3