Aerielle, LLC v Maximo Product, LLC

Filing 62

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 61 Aerielle LLC's Motion for an Order to Show Cause re Contempt and for Sanctions. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2012)

1
2

*E-FILED: November 9, 2012*

3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

7

12
13
14

No. C10-03420 HRL

AERIELLE, LLC,

ORDER DENYING AERIELLE LLC’S
MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE RE CONTEMPT AND FOR
SANCTIONS

Plaintiff,
v.
MAXIMO PRODUCTS, LLC,

[Re: Docket No. 61]
15

Defendant.
/

16
17

Following a bench trial in this breach of contract action, the court entered judgment in

18

the amount of $163,871.07 for plaintiff Aerielle LLC (Aerielle). Additionally, pursuant to the

19

agreements at issue, Aerielle was awarded $27,780.66 in fees and $718.26 in costs incurred in

20

this litigation. The court subsequently granted Aerielle’s application for an order directing

21

defendant Maximo Products, LLC (Maximo) to appear for a judgment debtor exam. The

22

examination was set for October 16, 2012. Aerielle appeared on the designated date. Maximo

23

did not.

24

During the October 16 appearance, Aerielle’s counsel advised the court that defense

25

counsel sent her an email the day before, stating that Maximo would not appear for the

26

examination as ordered because the company will be dissolved. Arguing that this was not

27

sufficient reason to excuse Maximo’s appearance, Aerielle requested relief from the court. The

28

court noted that Aerielle had not filed a proof of service of the judgment debtor examination

1

order. And, in response to the court’s inquiry, Aerielle’s counsel stated that she did not

2

personally serve Maximo with that order. Instead, she allowed service to be made on Maximo’s

3

counsel of record, via the court’s CM/ECF system, upon filing of the order. The court

4

expressed doubt whether that was sufficient. Nevertheless, the court directed Aerielle to submit

5

a request in writing specifying the relief being sought, along with citations to relevant authority.

6

Aerielle subsequently filed a request for an order (1) directing Maximo to appear and

attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with Maximo’s failure to appear (and making

9

such an award part of the judgment against Maximo); and (3) “remind[ing] Maximo that the

10

service of the examination order created a one-year lien on its nonexempt personal property,

11
For the Northern District of California

show cause why it should not be held in contempt; (2) awarding Aerielle’s reasonable

8

United States District Court

7

whether or not such property is in Maximo’s possession and control, and that said lien extends

12

to property outside of California.” (Dkt. No. 61 at 2). Having reviewed Aerielle’s written

13

submission, and for the reasons discussed below, the court denies Aerielle’s request.

14

Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “the judgment creditor or

15

a successor in interest whose interest appears of record may obtain discovery from any

16

person—including the judgment debtor—as provided in these rules or by the procedure of the

17

state where the court is located.” FED. R. CIV. P. 69(a)(2). California has a comprehensive

18

statutory scheme governing the enforcement of judgments, codified as Title 9 of the California

19

Code of Civil Procedure, including specific provisions pertaining to judgment debtor

20

examinations. Aerielle requested a judgment debtor exam pursuant to California Code of Civil

21

Procedure § 708.110. (See Dkt. No. 58). That statute provides that a judgment creditor may

22

apply “for an order requiring the judgment debtor to appear before the court, or before a referee

23

appointed by the court, at a time and place specified in the order, to furnish information to aid in

24

enforcement of the money judgment.” CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. § 708.110(a).

25

Under California law, a judgment debtor may be held in contempt for failure to appear

26

for a judgment debtor examination. CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. § 708.170(a)(1) (providing for

27

contempt or issuance of an arrest warrant for failure to appear for a debtor’s examination).

28

And, if the judgment debtor’s “failure to appear is without good cause, the judgment creditor
2

1

shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in the examination proceeding,” and such

2

an award “shall be added to and become part of the principal amount of the judgment.” Id. §

3

708.170(a)(2).

4

In this case, the court denies the relief Aerielle seeks because Aerielle failed to properly

provides that “[t]he judgment creditor shall personally serve a copy of the order on the

7

judgment debtor not less than 10 days before the date set for the examination. Service shall be

8

made in the manner specified in Section 415.10.” CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. § 708.110(d).

9

California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.10, in turn, directs service to be made by personal

10

delivery to the person to be served. Id., § 415.10. Section 708.110 goes on to state that such

11
For the Northern District of California

effect service of the judgment debtor order. California Code of Civil Procedure § 708.110

6

United States District Court

5

“[s]ervice of the order creates a lien on the personal property of the judgment debtor for a

12

period of one year from the date of the order, unless extended or sooner terminated by the

13

court.” Id. § 708.110(d). Further, state law requires that “when a writ, notice, order, or other

14

paper is required to be served under [Title 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure] on the judgment

15

debtor, it shall be served on the judgment debtor instead of the attorney for the judgment

16

debtor.” Id., § 684.020(a). There is an exception in situations where the judgment debtor files

17

and serves a request that service be made on a specified attorney, along with a signed consent

18

by the designated attorney. Id. § 684.020(b). There has been no such filing by Maximo here.

19

As discussed above, Aerielle did not personally serve the order requiring Maximo to

20

appear for a judgment debtor exam. Nor has counsel submitted any papers supporting its

21

request for fees and costs incurred in preparing for the judgment debtor examination.

22

Accordingly, Aerielle’s request for an order to show cause re contempt and for monetary

23

sanctions is denied. See Salamon v. Creditors Specialty Service, Inc., No. C11-00172CW, 2012

24

WL 4857810 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 2012) (denying motion re contempt and monetary sanctions

25

where the judgment creditor failed to properly serve orders concerning the judgment debtor

26
27
28
3

1
2
3

examination and did not submit documentation supporting its request for fees and costs).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 9, 2012

4
HOWARD R. LLOYD
5

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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
4

1

5:10-cv-03420-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Margaret Anne Crawford

3

Paul Gerard Minoletti

4

William J. Frimel

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

5
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
5