This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/06/2020 at 16:32:16 (UTC).

PACIFIC WESTERN BANK VS INSATIABLE ASSETS LLC.

Case Summary

On 03/28/2008 PACIFIC WESTERN BANK filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against INSATIABLE ASSETS LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Glendale Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAN A. PLUIM. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0578

  • Filing Date:

    03/28/2008

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Glendale Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JAN A. PLUIM

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

PACIFIC WESTERN BANK

PACIFIC WESTERN NATIONAL BANK

Defendants

BARNES BRADLEY E.

FEY KEITH N.

INSATIABLE ASSETS LLC

FREY KEITH N.

DOES 1 TO 100

TROUBLED ASSETS LLC

MORROW JR. JOHN J.

THE MORROW-KARSTEN TRUST

INSATABLE ASSETS LLC

FEY 240 NORTH BRAND LLC

THE DLG FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

JOHN P. SCHOCK AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF SCHOCK & SCHOCK ALC

Not Classified By Court

JOHN SCHOCK AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF SCHOCK & SCHOCK

SCHOCK & SCHOCK ALC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

HEMAR ROUSSO & HERALD LLP

COX PAMELA L.

LAW OFFICE OF HEMAR ROUSSO & HEALD

GOLDFLAM HAL

 

Court Documents

Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest

6/17/2019: Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest

Motion to Quash

7/24/2019: Motion to Quash

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

8/2/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Notice - NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION TO QUASH

8/7/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION TO QUASH

Declaration - DECLARATION OF HAL D. GOLDFLAM IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT CREDITOR PACIFIC WESTERN BANK'S APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO THIRD PARTY WITNESS SCHOCK & SCHOCK, ALC,...

10/24/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF HAL D. GOLDFLAM IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT CREDITOR PACIFIC WESTERN BANK'S APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO THIRD PARTY WITNESS SCHOCK & SCHOCK, ALC,...

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT CREDITORS PACIFIC WESTERN BANK'S APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO THIRD PARTY WITNESS SCHOCK & SCHOCK, ALC,...

10/24/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT CREDITORS PACIFIC WESTERN BANK'S APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO THIRD PARTY WITNESS SCHOCK & SCHOCK, ALC,...

Application and Order for Appearance and Examination

10/24/2019: Application and Order for Appearance and Examination

Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest

2/13/2019: Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest

Substitution of Attorney

2/13/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER /CONTINUING ORDER F...)

12/4/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER /CONTINUING ORDER F...)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATLON OF JOHN SCHOCK, AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF SCHOCK & SCHOCK AND APPE

12/2/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATLON OF JOHN SCHOCK, AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF SCHOCK & SCHOCK AND APPE

Proof of Personal Service

12/2/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JOHN P. SCHOCK IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH AND RECALL WRIT OF EXECUTION AND NOTICE OF LEVY

7/26/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JOHN P. SCHOCK IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH AND RECALL WRIT OF EXECUTION AND NOTICE OF LEVY

Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment

10/16/2019: Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: REQUEST

3/28/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: REQUEST

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE

7/17/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE

Application for and Renewal of Judgment -

6/27/2018: Application for and Renewal of Judgment -

Request For Copies -

7/18/2018: Request For Copies -

76 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by PACIFIC WESTERN BANK (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination (and Enforcement of Judgment as to Third Person John P. Shock, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Schock & Schock, ALC filed on behalf of Plaintiff Pacific Western Bank) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Hearing on Motion to Quash (Order to Appear for Examination and Civil Subpoena (Duces Tecum) filed on behalf of Third Person Schock & Schock, ALC) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examinati...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Hearing on Motion to Quash (Order to Appear for Examination and Civil Subpoena (Duces Tecum) filed on behalf of Third Person Schock & Schock, ALC) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2020
  • DocketReply (to Opposition to Motion to Quash Order for Appearance of Third Party or for a Protective Order and to Quash or Modify Subpoena Duces Tecum); Filed by John Schock, as Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of Schock & Schock (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2020
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by PACIFIC WESTERN NATIONAL BANK (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2020
  • DocketOpposition (JUDGMENT CREDITOR PACIFIC WESTERN BANK'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF THIRD PARTY JOHN P. SCHOCK AS CEO AND CFO OF SCHOCK & SCHOCK TO QUASH ORDER FOR APPEARANCE OF THIRD PARTY OR FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM); Filed by PACIFIC WESTERN NATIONAL BANK (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination (and Enforcement of Judgment as to Third Person John P. Shock, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Schock & Schock, ALC filed on behalf of Plaintiff Pacific Western Bank) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examinati...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
122 More Docket Entries
  • 05/06/2008
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by PACIFIC WESTERN BANK (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2008
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by PACIFIC WESTERN BANK (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2008
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2008
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2008
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by PACIFIC WESTERN BANK (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2008
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2008
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2008
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2008
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2008
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by PACIFIC WESTERN BANK (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: GC040578    Hearing Date: February 28, 2020    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 18

Date: 2/28/20

Case No: GC 040578

Case Name: Pacific Western Bank v. Insatiable Assets, et al.

MOTION TO QUASH ORDER FOR APPEARANCE OF THIRD PARTY

APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO THIRD PARTY WITNESS TO APPEAR

Moving Party: Witness John P. Schock as CEO of Schock & Schock (Quash)

Judgment Creditor Pacific Western Bank (Application)

Responding Party: Judgment Creditor Pacific Western Bank (Reciprocal Motions)

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Quash Order for Appearance of Third Party or for protective order to quash or modify subpoena duces tecum

Order requiring appearance of third party

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Plaintiff Pacific Western Bank brought this action to collect sums allegedly due under a written Promissory Note entered into by defendant Insatiable Assets, LLC, in favor of plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, secured by a Commercial Security Agreement.

On September 16, 2008, Judgment by the court by default was entered based on plaintiff’s written declaration in favor of plaintiff Pacific Western Bank and against defendants in the sum of $353,883.33.

On June 28, 2018, judgment creditor Pacific Western Bank filed an Application for and Renewal of judgment, seeking a total renewed judgment of $276,861.14.

ANALYSIS:

Judgment creditor Pacific Western Bank seeks the issuance of an order to appear for examination to Schock & Schock, a law corporation, through John P. Schock, to testify about his knowledge of the assets and liabilities of judgment debtors the DLG Family Limited Partnership and Bradley A. Barnes.

Schock & Schock seek an order quashing the notice to appear and subpoena with which it has been served.

Judgment creditor argues that Schock & Schock is a creditor of judgment debtor DLG, and therefore subject to being examined, as judgment creditor is informed that DLG is indebted to Schock & Schock in the sum of at least $950,000, pursuant to one or more promissory notes executed by DLG, and that payment of DLG’s indebtedness to Schock & Schock was secured by a deed of trust recorded in 2009 against property in Riverside, which property has been sold, with judgment creditor becoming the owner by a successful credit bid of $225,000 in September of 2019.

Judgment creditor argues that although the lien on the Riverside Property was extinguished by the sale of the property, Shock & Schock, as a former secured creditor and now unsecured creditor of DLG, has or should have knowledge of DLG’s assets and liabilities outside of any communications which DLG may claim are protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege.

Judgment creditor indicates the examination is sought pursuant to CCP § 708.130(a), which provides:

“(a) Witnesses may be required to appear and testify before the court or referee in an examination proceeding under this article in the same manner as upon the trial of an issue.”

Schock & Schock argues that the manner by which witnesses are compelled to appear at trial is not by an Order to Appear under CCP § 708.120, but a subpoena issued under CCP § 1985. Such a subpoena has been served here.

Judgment creditor relies on Yolanda’s Inc. v. Kahl & Goveia Commercial Real Estate (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 509, 515, in which the Second District denied a petition for writ of mandate in connection with a trial court’s order that a third-party management company which was no longer in possession of property of the judgment debtor’s property was permitted to be asked questions at a judgment debtor’s examination. The trial court in that matter had proceeded as follows:

“After briefing and a hearing, the court found that the subpoena issued in the debtor’s examination was not limited in scope to section 708.120. The court concluded it has inherent authority to create a proper procedure under section 187. The court granted Yolanda’s permission to ask questions of KGCRE concerning: “(i) the ultimate disposition of assets transferred by KGCRE to Joseph Goveia and Bruce Kahl; (ii) the interrelationship between KGCRE and other judgment debtors and related parties for purposes of establishing possible alter ego liability; and (iii) any other questions that may assist Judgment Creditors in determining the judgment debtors’ true financial condition and the nature and location of judgment debtors’ assets and sources of income.”

Yolanda’s, at 512.

The Second District found that the order had been properly issued, in partial reliance on CCP § 708.130, reasoning:

“Whatever the limitations of section 708.120, section 708.130, subdivision (a) has a broader reach. It provides: “Witnesses may be required to appear and testify before the court or referee in an examination proceeding under this article in the same manner as upon the trial of an issue.” (§ 708.130, subd. (a).)

This subdivision allows any person with information leading to the enforcement of the judgment, to be subpoenaed to testify in an examination proceeding in the same manner as a trial witness. (Ahart, Cal. Practice Guide: Enforcing Judgments and Debts (The Rutter Group 2016) ¶ 6:1280, pp. 6G-2 to 6G-3.)

The trial court also relied on section 187. That section provides: “When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.”

Section 187 codifies the trial court’s inherent power to adopt any suitable method of practice if the procedure is not specified by statute or the Rules of Court. (Citizens Utilities Co. v. Superior Court (1963) 59 Cal.2d 805, 812–813, 31 Cal.Rptr. 316, 382 P.2d 356.)

KGCRE argues section 187 does not apply because section 708.120 expressly limits the examination of a third party to property of the judgment *515 debtor held by a third party and debts owed by a third party to a judgment debtor. But nothing in section 708.120 states that it is the only procedure available for examining a third party. In fact, section 708.130 expressly provides otherwise. To the extent section 708.130 may not apply, there is no reason why the court cannot use its power under section 187 to fashion an appropriate procedure. The policy of the law favors the enforcement of judgments. (See Troy v. Superior Court (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1014, 231 Cal.Rptr. 108 [“the purpose of a judgment debtor examination is to leave no stone unturned in the search for assets which might be used to satisfy the judgment”].) There is no policy favoring the concealment of the judgment debtor’s assets from the judgment creditor.

Yolanda’s, at 514-515.

Judgment debtor here argues that the court in this matter accordingly has authority to order Schock & Schock to appear for examination under this broad interpretation of CCP § 708.130, and to produce the documents requested in the subpoena, which pertain only to the assets of DLG, and which information is sought to aid in the enforcement of the judgment.

Schock & Schock argue that it cannot be compelled as a third party to appear for the examination or to produce documents pursuant to subpoena, as the only circumstances under which third parties are to be examined are set forth in CCP § 708.120, which provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) Upon ex parte application by a judgment creditor who has a money judgment and proof by the judgment creditor by affidavit or otherwise to the satisfaction of the proper court that a third person has possession or control of property in which the judgment debtor has an interest or is indebted to the judgment debtor in an amount exceeding two hundred fifty dollars ($250), the court shall make an order directing the third person to appear before the court, or before a referee appointed by the court, at a time and place specified in the order, to answer concerning such property or debt. The affidavit in support of the judgment creditor's application may be based on the affiant's information and belief.”

There is no question here that Schock & Schock is not in possession of control of property in which the judgment debtor has an interest and is not indebted to the judgment debtor; the judgment debtor is indebted to Schock & Schock. However, this is similar to the argument rejected in Yolanda’s, and why relief is sought in this matter under CCP § 708.130, which the Second District in Yolanda’s viewed with approval, or, in the alternative, found the trial court properly exercised its inherent authority in conformity with the policy favoring the enforcement of judgments.

Schock & Schock argues that the decision in Yolanda’s has been recently criticized, in reliance on Finance Holding Company, LLC v. The American Institute of Certified Tax Coaches, Inc. (2019) 29 Cal.App.5th 663, in which the Fourth District found that a trial court order ordering document production by a third party which fell outside the scope of CCP § 708.120 was improper, reasoning:

“Section 708.130 provides generally that witnesses in a judgment debtor examination may appear and testify “in the same manner as upon the trial of an issue.” Finance argues that this code section allowed it to conduct the type of broad discovery permitted under prejudgment discovery rules. We disagree. Under settled statutory interpretation principles, section 708.130 does not expand a court's powers to order third party discovery under section 708.120. (See Fox Johns, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 1220-1221, 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 571.) Otherwise, there would have been no need for section 708.120. Because section 708.130 is a general statute pertaining to the conduct of a debtor's examination, and section 708.120 provides specific rules regarding the scope of discovery against a third party in judgment enforcement proceedings, section 708.120 governs the court's discovery order here. (See State Dept. of Public Health v. Superior Court (2015) 60 Cal.4th 940, 960-961, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 60, 342 P.3d 1217; Lake v. Reed (1997) 16 Cal.4th 448, 464, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 860, 940 P.2d 311; People v. Bussey (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1056, 1063, 235 Cal.Rptr.3d 348.)

Finance Holding, at 683.

The court of appeal expressly disagreed with the holding in Yolanda’s:

“Even assuming compelling reasons support an expansion of third party discovery in a particular case, we disagree with Yolanda's that courts have the authority to order the discovery beyond the confines of section 708.120. The decision whether to enlarge a judgment creditor's rights to obtain discovery is one for the Legislature and not the courts. (See Fox Johns, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 1221, 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 571; see also Schechter, Post-Judgment Examination of Non-Debtor Third Party May Delve Into Alter Ego and Fraudulent Transfer Issues, Despite Narrow Wording of Statute (Thomson Reuters 2017) 2017-19 Comm. Fin. News NL 38 [noting the conflict between Fox Johns and Yolanda's on scope of third party judgment enforcement discovery; opining that Fox Johns “correctly” interpreted “the current statutes”; and concluding that although the result in Yolanda's reflects better public policy, its approach requires an amendment of the relevant statutes].) The determination involves the examination and balancing of various private interests and public policies, a task best left to the legislative arena.”

Finance Holding, at 685.

The court of appeal also found Yolanda’s distinguishable, noting that in Yolanda’s there was evidence showing the third-party entity was controlled by the debtors, and that there had been transfer of certain debtor assets, but in the case before it, the order involved a third party, not alleged to be an alter ego of the debtor, being required to produce records without any showing of relevance to the debtor. Finance Holding, at 686.

Schock & Schock also rely on Shrewsbury Management, Inc. v. Superior Court (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1213, in which the Sixth District issued a preemptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying a motion by a judgment debtor to enforce a subpoena directed to a bank for records in entities in which it was claimed the judgment debtor had a financial interest. The court of appeal discussed Yolanda’s and Finance Holding as follows:

“We observe that after the trial court issued its order in this case, the Second Appellate District, Division Six, in Yolandas determined that “nothing in section 708.120 states that it is the only procedure available for examining a third party. In fact, section 708.130 expressly provides otherwise.” (Yolandas, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 515, 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 625.) The appellate court explained that “[w]hatever the limitations of section 708.120, section 708.130, subdivision (a) has a broader reach. ... [¶] This subdivision allows any person with information leading to the enforcement of the judgment to be subpoenaed to testify in an examination proceeding in the same manner as a trial witness.” (Id. at p. 514, 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 625.) We agree with Yolandas.

Recently, in Finance Holding, which was decided by the same division of the Fourth Appellate District as Fox Johns, the appellate court reaffirmed its conclusion that “[a] third party document subpoena must ... be limited to ‘confirm[ing] the existence of the subject property [and/or] debt’ ” within the meaning of section 708.120. (Finance Holding, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 682, 240 Cal.Rptr.3d 604.) Like Fox Johns, however, the documents at issue in Finance Holding were apparently being sought from a third party in connection with an examination under section 708.120. Finance Holding is thus distinguishable from the instant case in which the documents were sought from a third party (Wells Fargo) in connection with the examination of the judgment debtor (Boucher) under section 708.110.

However, to the extent that Finance Holding’s language suggests that the scope of inquiry with respect to a third party is always limited by that delineated in section 708.120, because section 708.120 is a purportedly more specific statute that controls over section 708.130, we respectfully disagree. (See Finance Holding, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 683, 240 Cal.Rptr.3d 604.) The principle that a specific statute controls over a more general statute is applicable only when the two statutes cannot be reconciled. (Medical Board v. Superior Court (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1004-1005, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 381.) Section 708.120 authorizes examinations of a specific subset of third party witnesses—those who have possession or control of property in which the judgment debtor has an interest or are indebted to the judgment debtor in an amount exceeding $ 250 (id., subd. (a))—and provides for a lien “on the judgment debtor’s interest in the property or on the debt for a period of one year from the date of the order unless extended or sooner terminated by the *1228 court” (§ 708.120, subd. (c)). Further, at the conclusion of the third party examination under section 708.120, “the court may order the judgment debtor’s interest in the property in the possession or under the control of the judgment debtor or the third person or a debt owed by the third person to the judgment debtor to be applied toward the satisfaction of the money judgment if the property is not exempt from enforcement of a money judgment.” (§ 708.205, subd. (a).) Section 708.130, on the other hand, simply permits judgment creditors to call witnesses with relevant information in examination proceedings—either a proceeding under section 708.110 or section 708.120—without creating any liens on property in the witness’s possession or control. In our view, these two statutes serve different purposes and do not conflict.

Shrewsbury Management, at 1227-1228.

This authority accordingly appears to support the judgment debtor’s position here, not the position being taken by Schock & Schock.

In summary, there is a split of authority on the issue of whether CCP § 708.130(a) permits the proceedings being pursued by the judgment debtor here.

Where there is a split of authority, the trial courts have discretion to choose between the conflicting decisions. See Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456.

The court concludes that the appeal of the position taken by the Fourth District is solely that the expansion of discovery directed to third parties in the enforcement of judgments should be left to the legislature. Finance Holding itself recognizes that there is legal commentary recognizing that the result in Yolanda's “reflects better public policy.” Finance Holding, at 685.

The position taken by the Second District in the Yolanda’s, Inc. case, and discussed with approval by the Sixth District in the Shrewsbury Management, Inc. case, has the advantage of having support in statutory interpretation reconciling the two statutes, and in advancing the public policy favoring the enforcement of money judgments. The court accordingly grants the motion for an order requiring Schock & Schock to appear for examination, and to comply with the subpoena, and denies the motion to quash.

RULING:

Judgment Creditor Pacific Western Bank’s Application for Order to Third Party Witness Schock & Schock to Appear for Examination Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 708.130 (a) is GRANTED. Third party witness Schock & Schock is ordered to appear for examination on April 24, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., and to produce documents responsive to the subpoena by March 28, 2020.