Dish Network L.L.C. et al v. Sonicview USA, Inc. et al

Filing 276

ORDER re 273 October 11, 2012 Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion in Opposition of Claim of Exemption. Defendant fails to show that any of the funds in his Armed Forces Bank account should be exempt from collection. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 12/26/2012.(sjt) (jrl).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 DISH NETWORK L.L.C., et al., 14 15 16 17 18 ) Case No. 09-cv-1553-L(WVG) ) Plaintiffs, ) ORDER RE: OCTOBER 11, 2012 ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ v. ) MOTION IN OPPOSITION OF ) CLAIM OF EXEMPTION SONICVIEW USA, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) On October 11, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion in opposition to judgment 19 debtor Defendant Danial Pierce’s claim of exemption. (Doc. 272.) In that order, the Court 20 found that, because of the procedural defects in filing his claim, Mr. Pierce is time-barred and 21 has waived his right to make any claim of exemption with respect to the property held by the 22 Armed Forces Bank. However, the Court noted that Plaintiffs failed to provide any statute or 23 case law that show that claims of exemption to governmental-benefits funds that fall under 38 24 U.S.C. § 5301(a) or California Code of Civil Procedure § 483.013 can be waived. 25 Consequently, the Court gave Mr. Pierce the opportunity to identify specific funds in his Armed 26 Forces Bank account that are governmental benefits exempt under the aforementioned statutes, 27 and show that claims of exemption to those funds cannot be waived. Plaintiffs were also given 28 the opportunity to respond. 09cv1553 1 Mr. Pierce filed a timely supplemental response to the Court’s October 11, 2012 Order.1 2 In the response, Mr. Pierce argues that the various military-benefits funds are exempt under 38 3 U.S.C. § 5301(a), California Code of Civil Procedure § 483.013 and § 704.110, and In re 4 Dalaimo, 88 B.R. 268 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1988). (Pierce Resp. 1:18–26.) No legal analysis or 5 additional explanation is provided. Also, Mr. Pierce fails to lay out how much is currently in his 6 Armed Forces Bank account, and what portion of that are benefits in his brief. Rather, Mr. 7 Pierce attaches almost a dozen pages of bank records that span from July 2012 to September 8 2012 without much explanation. (See Pierce Decl. ¶¶ 4–10; Pierce Decl. Exs. 1–3.) Three 9 months of records is also hardly a complete picture of how Mr. Pierce used his Armed Forces 10 Bank account. Though Mr. Pierce vehemently denies that he commingled his governmental 11 benefits with any other funds in his Armed Forces Bank account, he concedes that at one point 12 there were deposits—albeit old deposits—into this account that were not governmental benefits. 13 (Pierce Decl. ¶ 9.) 14 In sum, Mr. Pierce fails to show that any of the funds in his Armed Forces Bank account 15 should be exempt from collection. See Tinsley v. Bauer, 125 Cal. App. 2d 724, 734 (1954) 16 (judgment creditor should not suffer because of the fact that assets on which it is entitled to levy 17 and assets which husband can claim as exempt are so commingled that the husband cannot 18 demonstrate exactly how much is exempt from levy). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 DATED: October 26, 2012 22 23 COPY TO: M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge 24 HON. WILLIAM V. GALLO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL 26 27 28 1 To date, Plaintiffs have not responded. 09cv1553 2

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?