This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/29/2016 at 06:43:19 (UTC).

MOHAMMAD H. KAMYAB VS RAFAEL DAVILA MADRIGAL

Case Summary

On 03/27/2012 MOHAMMAD H KAMYAB filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against RAFAEL DAVILA MADRIGAL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are SIRNA, SALVATORE T. and OKI, DAN THOMAS. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3458

  • Filing Date:

    03/27/2012

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

SIRNA, SALVATORE T.

OKI, DAN THOMAS

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

KAMYAB MOHAMMAD H.

LAW OFFICES OF MOHAMMAD H. KAMYAB

Defendants

MADRIGAL RAFAEL DAVILA

DAVILA RAFAEL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorney

REBEIL CRISTINA ESQ.

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/04/2016
  • Writ-Other (ISSUED TO LA CO ) Filed by Judgment Creditor

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2014
  • Abstract of Judgment Filed by Judgment Creditor

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2014
  • Reply (TO PLTFS MTN SEEKING MONETARY & NON-MONETARY SANCTIONS ) Filed by Plaintiff, & Plaintiff in Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2014
  • Notice of Continuance (OF 128.7 MOTION ) Filed by Plaintiff, & Plaintiff in Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2014
  • Response (To Pltfs Mtn for Monetary & Non- Monetary Sanctions ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2014
  • Proof-Personal Service Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2014
  • Notice of Hearing Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2014
  • Notice of Motion (FOR MONETARY & NON-MONETARY SANCTION ) Filed by Plaintiff, & Plaintiff in Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2014
  • Opposition (To Defts 473n Mtn & Request for Penalty ) Filed by Plaintiff, & Plaintiff in Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2014
  • Miscellaneous-Other (TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT ) Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2014
  • Notice of Motion Filed by Plaintiff, & Plaintiff in Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2013
  • Notice of Change of Address Filed by Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2012
  • Miscellaneous-Other (DEFT'S VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2012
  • Answer to Complaint Filed Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2012
  • Notice-Case Management Conference Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2012
  • Proof-Service/Summons (AS TO RAFAEL DAVILA ) Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2012
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: KC063458    Hearing Date: January 17, 2020    Dept: J

HEARING DATE: Friday, January 17, 2020

NOTICE: OK[1]

RE: Kamyab v. Madrigal (KC063458)

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Mohammad H. Kamyab dba Law Offices of Mohammad H.

Kamyab aka Kamyab Law Firm’s MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT ORDER AND FOR

RESTRAINING JUDGMENT DEBTOR

Responding Party: None (unopposed, as of 1/13/20)

Tentative Ruling

See below.

Background

Plaintiff Mohammad H. Kamyab dba Law Offices of Mohammad H. Kamyab aka Kamyab Law

Firm (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant Rafael Davila Madrigal aka Rafael Davila (“Madrigal”)

failed to pay Plaintiff for legal services rendered.

On March 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Madrigal and Does 1-10 for:

  1. Breach of Contract

  2. Common Count

  3. Fraud

On June 12, 2014, a court judgment on stipulation was filed in Plaintiff’s favor and against Madrigal in the amount of $45,200.00.

Legal Standard

“[U]pon application of the judgment creditor on noticed motion, the court may order the judgment debtor to assign to the judgment creditor. . . 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:. . . (2) Rents.” (CCP § 708.510(a).) The court may take into consideration all relevant factors, including but not limited to (1) the reasonable economic needs of a natural person judgment debtor and those supported partly or wholly by the debtor, (2) payments the judgment debtor is required to make or that are deducted in satisfaction of other judgments and wage assignments, (3) the amount remaining due on the money judgment and (4) the amount remaining to be received on the right to payment. (CCP § 708.510(c).)

A right to payment may be assigned only to the extent necessary to satisfy the money judgment. (CCP § 708.510(b).)

When a 708.510 application is made or thereafter, the judgment creditor may apply to the court for an order restraining the judgment debtor from assigning or otherwise disposing of the right to payment that is sought to be assigned. (CCP § 708.520(a).) The court may issue such an order

upon a showing of need and may, in its discretion, require the judgment creditor to provide an undertaking. (CCP § 708.520(b).) The court may modify or vacate the order at any time on such terms as are just, with or without a hearing. (CCP § 708.520(c).) The order must be personally served on the judgment debtor and contain a notice to the judgment debtor that failure to comply with the order may subject the judgment debtor to being held in contempt of court. (CCP § 708.520(d).)

Discussion

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Mohammad H. Kamyab dba Law Offices of Mohammad H. Kamyab

aka Kamyab Law Firm (“Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor”) moves the court, per CCP § 708.510, for

an order instructing Madrigal to assign Madrigal’s interest in rental payments received from two

entities, i.e., Quick Auto Repair and Carrillo Body Shop & Muffler, located at 1515 South

Alameda Street, Compton, California 90220 (“the Alameda Property”), and all rights to the

payments thereunder, to Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor to the extent necessary to pay the June 12,

2014 judgment in full, including the accrued interest through the date of payment.

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor also moves the court for an order restraining Madrigal and any

servant, agent, employee, or attorney for Madrigal and person(s) in active concert and

participating with Madrigal from encumbering, assigning, disposing or spending Madrigal’s

interest in the 1515 South Alameda property, and all rights to payment thereunder.

The Court is inclined to order Madrigal to GRANT the requested relief, based upon the

information set forth in the Supplemental Declaration of Judgment Creditor. Judgment Debtor

has not filed any written opposition, nor has Judgment Creditor claimed that all or a portion of

the right to payment is exempt from enforcement of a money judgment by applying to the court

on noticed motion filed not later than 3 days before the instant hearing date. (See CCP §

708.550.) Failure of Judgment Debtor to make a claim of exemption is a waiver of the

exemption.


[1] The motion was filed on August 22, 2019 and originally set for hearing on October 7, 2019. On October 7, 2019, the court continued the hearing, on its own motion, to January 17, 2020 and ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to give notice. On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor filed and mail-served a Notice of Ruling. On December 18, 2019, Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor filed a supplemental declaration.