CERAMIC TILE AND STONE CONSULTANTS, INC. VS SOLISTONE, INC.
Case Summary
On 01/22/2019 CERAMIC TILE AND STONE CONSULTANTS, INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against SOLISTONE, INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Case Details
-
Case Number:
*******0738
-
Filing Date:
01/22/2019
-
Case Status:
Disposed - Judgment Entered
-
Courthouse:
-
County, State:
Los Angeles, California
Judge Details
Judge
WENDY CHANG
Party Details
Plaintiffs
CERAMIC TILE AND STONE CONSULTANTS INC.
CERAMIC TILE AND STONE CONSULTANTS INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
Defendants
SOLISTONE INC.
SOLISTONE INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
Not Classified By Court
BESHARAT SOLI
Attorney/Law Firm Details
Plaintiff Attorney
LAKE DAVID NATHAN
Defendant Attorney
ABELL MARK AARON
Court Documents
9/2/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 09/02/2020
3/24/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
2/14/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of David Lake In Support of Motion for Assignment Order
2/14/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Kevin Klaser In Support of Motion for Assignment Order
2/14/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continued Hearing on Motion for Assignment Order
9/16/2019: Application and Order for Appearance and Examination - Application and Order for Appearance and Examination
8/15/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Donato Pompo in Support of Default Judgment
8/15/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of David N. Lake In Support of Default Judgment
7/31/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Defendants Representation of Counsel)
5/8/2019: Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil
5/28/2019: Proof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Proof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
5/8/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel)
4/29/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Unavailability
3/25/2019: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil
1/22/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
1/22/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
1/22/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
Docket Entries
- 09/02/2020
-
DocketUpdated -- Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment: As To Parties changed from Solistone, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant) to Solistone, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant)
- 09/02/2020
-
DocketMinute Order (Court Order)
- 09/02/2020
-
DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 09/02/2020; Filed by: Clerk
- 09/02/2020
-
DocketBench Warrant - ORAP status updated to Recalled and Quashed on 09/02/2020; As to: Soli Besharat ( Judgment Debtor )
- 09/02/2020
-
DocketUpdated -- Judgment entered on 09/02/2020 ; Status Date changed from 09/06/2019 to 09/02/2020 ; Status changed from Entered to Satisfied
- 09/02/2020
-
DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion for Assignment Order scheduled for 09/10/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 09/02/2020
- 08/31/2020
-
DocketPursuant to the request of moving party, Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination scheduled for 02/17/2021 at 01:30 PM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party on 08/31/2020
- 08/28/2020
-
DocketAcknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment; Filed by: Solistone, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant); As to: Solistone, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant)
- 08/27/2020
-
DocketOrder for Continuance/Setting of Judgment Debtor Examination; Filed by: Clerk
- 08/27/2020
-
DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination scheduled for 09/03/2020 at 01:30 PM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Rescheduled by Court was rescheduled to 02/17/2021 01:30 PM
- 03/04/2019
-
DocketAnswer; Filed by: Solistone, Inc. (Defendant)
- 01/25/2019
-
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/21/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
- 01/25/2019
-
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/25/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
- 01/25/2019
-
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
- 01/22/2019
-
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Ceramic Tile and Stone Consultants, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Solistone, Inc. (Defendant)
- 01/22/2019
-
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Ceramic Tile and Stone Consultants, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Solistone, Inc. (Defendant)
- 01/22/2019
-
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Ceramic Tile and Stone Consultants, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Solistone, Inc. (Defendant)
- 01/22/2019
-
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Ceramic Tile and Stone Consultants, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Solistone, Inc. (Defendant)
- 01/22/2019
-
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
- 01/22/2019
-
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk
Tentative Rulings
Case Number: 19STLC00738 Hearing Date: January 08, 2020 Dept: 94
Judgment
Creditor’s Motion for Assignment Order is CONTINUED to April 23, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 94. ANALYSIS: I. Background On January 22, 2019,
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Ceramic Tile & Stone Consultants, Inc.
(“Creditor”) filed an action against Defendant/Judgment Debtor Solistone, Inc.
(“Debtor”) for breach of contract and goods and services rendered. On March 4,
2019, Debtor filed an Answer. On July 31, 2019 hearing, no
appearances by either party were made. (7/31/19 Minute Order.) Because Debtor
failed to obtain counsel as directed by the Court, it struck the March 4, 2019
Answer and entered default. (Id.) On
September 6, 2019, default judgment was entered against Debtor. On September 13, 2019, Creditor
filed the instant Motion for Assignment Order (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition or reply
briefs have been filed. I. Legal Standard Code of Civil Procedure, section
708.510, subdivision (a) states, in relevant part: (a) Except as otherwise provided by
law, upon application of the judgment creditor on noticed motion, the court may
order the judgment debtor to assign to the judgment creditor or to a receiver
appointed pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 708.610) all or part
of a right to payment due or to become due, whether or not the right is
conditioned on future developments, including but not limited to the following
types of payments: (1) Wages dues from the federal
government that are not subject to withholding under an earnings withholding order. (2)
Rents. (3)
Commissions. (4)
Royalties. (5)
Payments due from a patent or copyright. (6)
Insurance policy loan value. (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.510, subd.
(a).) Code of Civil Procedure section 708.510(c), further provides: [I]n determining whether to order
an assignment or the amount of an assignment pursuant to subdivision (a), the
court may take into consideration all relevant factors, including the
following: (1) The reasonable requirements of a
judgment debtor who is a natural person and of persons supported in whole or in
part by the judgment debtor. (2) Payments the judgment debtor is
required to make or that are deducted in satisfaction of other judgments and
wage assignments, including earnings assignment orders for support.
(3) The amount remaining due on the money judgment.
(4) The amount being or to be received in satisfaction of the right to payment that may be assigned.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 708.510, subd. (c).) Construing all the applicable statutes together, it seems clear that the “assignment order” contemplated by Code of Civil Procedure, section 708.510, et seq. must include a court order that assigns a right to payment outright (not simply an order directing the judgment debtor to do so).
I. Discussion
The Court entered judgment against Debtor in the amount of $16,844.57 on September 6, 2019. (9/6/19 Judgment.) Defendant has not made any payments toward the judgment as of the date of this Motion. (Mot., p. 2.) On January 8, 2020, the date of this hearing, the outstanding balance on the judgment, including any accrued interest, will be $17,407.59. (Lake Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. B.)
Creditor seeks an order assigning all of Debtor’s right to payment due or to become due through its merchant services agreements or other arrangements or contracts with American Express, Visa, Mastercard, or Discover Card, or any of their subsidiaries or affiliates. (Mot., p. 2.) Creditor argues that Debtor continues to operate its business selling tile and stone, which generates income, at least in part, through the merchant services companies listed above. (Id.) However, Creditor does not provide any evidence whatsoever, that Debtor remains in business or that it receives payment through the listed merchant services companies.
II. Conclusion & Order
Accordingly, Judgment Creditor’s Motion for Assignment Order is CONTINUED to April 23, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 94.
Judgment Creditor is ordered to submit supplemental briefing supported by admissible factual and documentary evidence with respect to the request for an assignment order. The supplemental papers are to be filed and served at least 16 court days prior to the new hearing date. Failure to comply with the court’s orders may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.
Moving party to give notice.Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases