This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/16/2022 at 19:20:46 (UTC).

DOUGLAS A BAGBY VS JOSEPH DANIEL DAVIS ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/26/2017 DOUGLAS A BAGBY filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against JOSEPH DANIEL DAVIS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JOHN P. DOYLE, EDWARD B. MORETON, JOSEPH R. KALIN, BRUCE G. IWASAKI, SAMANTHA JESSNER and EDWARD B. MORETON, JR.. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3174

  • Filing Date:

    05/26/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JOHN P. DOYLE

EDWARD B. MORETON

JOSEPH R. KALIN

BRUCE G. IWASAKI

SAMANTHA JESSNER

EDWARD B. MORETON, JR.

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Respondent and Appellant

BAGBY DOUGLAS A.

Appellants and Defendants

DAVIS JOSEPH DANIEL

BAGBY DOUGLAS A.

GRASTORF EDWARD J.

Not Classified By Court

HERNANDEZ ERMELINDA

KWON-CHANG CHRISTINE

WALTERS CORSON LAWANNA

NEMECEK & COLE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

BAGBY DOUGLAS A. ESQ.

BAKER ROBERT CRAIG

ALTHOLZ ANDREW PETER

FRIEDMAN JOSHUA P

Appellant Attorney

SCHAEFFER MARK

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

DAVIS JOSEPH DANIEL ESQ.

RODGERS DIANA KREINMAN

NEMECEK FRANK WYNN

 

Court Documents

Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal

11/27/2018: Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal

DEFENDANT JOSEPH DANIEL DAVIS' NOTICE OF INTENTION TO MOVE FOR NEW TRIAL

10/1/2018: DEFENDANT JOSEPH DANIEL DAVIS' NOTICE OF INTENTION TO MOVE FOR NEW TRIAL

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF BENCH WARRANT

3/15/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF BENCH WARRANT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATI...)

3/13/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATI...)

Application and Order for Appearance and Examination

11/1/2018: Application and Order for Appearance and Examination

Appeal - Remittitur - Other - APPEAL - REMITTITUR - OTHER REVERSED AND REMANDED; B294081

4/23/2020: Appeal - Remittitur - Other - APPEAL - REMITTITUR - OTHER REVERSED AND REMANDED; B294081

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

4/27/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/27/2020

4/27/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 04/27/2020

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF FILING OF AMENDED DEFAULT JUDGMENT PER ORDERS OF THE COURT OF APPEAL DATED JANUARY 24 AND FEBRUARY 14, 2020; DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS A. BAGBY; DECLARATION OF DERRICK S. LOWE

4/29/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF FILING OF AMENDED DEFAULT JUDGMENT PER ORDERS OF THE COURT OF APPEAL DATED JANUARY 24 AND FEBRUARY 14, 2020; DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS A. BAGBY; DECLARATION OF DERRICK S. LOWE

Notice - NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE RE REMITTITUR

4/30/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE RE REMITTITUR

Objection - OBJECTION DEFENDANT DAVIS'S OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED AMENDED JUDGMENT LODGED BY PLAINTIFF BAGBY - THE COURT HAS SCHEDULED A JULY 7, 2020 STATUS CONFERENCE RE REMITTITUR

4/30/2020: Objection - OBJECTION DEFENDANT DAVIS'S OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED AMENDED JUDGMENT LODGED BY PLAINTIFF BAGBY - THE COURT HAS SCHEDULED A JULY 7, 2020 STATUS CONFERENCE RE REMITTITUR

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY AN INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED AND A TEMPORARY RESTAINING ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORIEIS; DECLARATIONS OF DOU

5/1/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY AN INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED AND A TEMPORARY RESTAINING ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORIEIS; DECLARATIONS OF DOU

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF BAGBY'S EX PARTE APPLICATION; AND REQUEST THAT THIS COURT ISSUE AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED

5/4/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF BAGBY'S EX PARTE APPLICATION; AND REQUEST THAT THIS COURT ISSUE AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED

Notice - NOTICE OF COURT'S ORDER DENYING BAGBY'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

5/5/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF COURT'S ORDER DENYING BAGBY'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WH...)

5/5/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WH...)

Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone

6/24/2020: Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE REMITTITUR)

7/7/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE REMITTITUR)

Objection - OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED AMENDED JUDGMENT LODGED BY PLAINTIFF

7/16/2020: Objection - OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED AMENDED JUDGMENT LODGED BY PLAINTIFF

203 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/11/2022
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Default Issued; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/12/2022
  • DocketAppeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103; Filed by Douglas A. Bagby (Appellant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/12/2022
  • DocketNotice of Filing of Notice of Appeal (Unlimited Civil); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/07/2022
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed; Filed by Douglas A. Bagby (Appellant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/14/2022
  • DocketNotice of Ruling (ON MOTION OF JUDGMENT CREDITOR DOUGLAS A. BAGBY TO ENFORCE AMENDED JUDGMENT); Filed by Joseph Daniel Davis (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/10/2022
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 58, Bruce G. Iwasaki, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (Enforcement of Judgment) - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/10/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Enforcement of the Amended ...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/10/2022
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/03/2022
  • DocketReply (Memorandum and Declaration of Douglas A. Bagby); Filed by Douglas A. Bagby (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/01/2022
  • DocketNotice (Case Reassignment); Filed by Douglas A. Bagby (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
269 More Docket Entries
  • 08/16/2017
  • DocketCASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/12/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/12/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/02/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/02/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/02/2017
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/02/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/26/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Douglas A. Bagby (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/26/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/26/2017
  • DocketVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT, ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****3174    Hearing Date: October 15, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: October 15, 2020

Case Name: Bagby v. Davis, et al.

Case No.: ****3174

Matter: (1) Motion to Claim Exemption

(2) Motion for Assignment and Restraining Orders

Moving Party: (1) Defendant Joseph Davis

(2) Plaintiff Douglas A. Bagby

Responding Party: (1) Plaintiff Douglas A. Bagby

(2) Defendant Joseph Davis


Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Claim Exemption is granted.

The Motion for Assignment and Restraining Orders is denied.


Defendant Joseph Davis seeks an order exempting three annuity contracts and a life insurance policy from enforcement by Plaintiff Douglas A. Bagby. Davis principally argues he is a resident of Florida such that Fla. Stat. ; 222.14 exempts the subject property from enforcement efforts.

Plaintiff Bagby seeks an assignment order as to the subject annuities and life insurance policy; Bagby also requests that Davis and his agents be retrained from transferring, encumbering, or spending such assets. Bagby argues the evidence of Davis’ residency should not be believed, particularly given Davis’ “history of lies and deceit.”

Code Civ. Proc. ; 708.550(a) provides,

The judgment debtor may claim that all or a portion of the right to payment is exempt from enforcement of a money judgment by application to the court on noticed motion filed not later than three days before the date set for the hearing on the judgment creditor's application for an assignment order. The judgment debtor shall execute an affidavit in support of the application that includes all of the matters set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 703.520 . Failure of the judgment debtor to make a claim of exemption is a waiver of the exemption.

Fla. Stat. ; 222.14 states,

The cash surrender values of life insurance policies issued upon the lives of citizens or residents of the state and the proceeds of annuity contracts issued to citizens or residents of the state, upon whatever form, shall not in any case be liable to attachment, garnishment or legal process in favor of any creditor of the person whose life is so insured or of any creditor of the person who is the beneficiary of such annuity contract, unless the insurance policy or annuity contract was effected for the benefit of such creditor.

Here, there is sufficient evidence that Davis resides in Florida such that the subject property is exempt pursuant to Fla. Stat. ; 222.14. Indeed, as Davis states, he

is 78 years old and has been in the process the last few years of retiring from work. (Davis dec., ¶ 3.) Davis has closed his California law practice of 45 years and ended his secretary’s employment with him. (Davis dec., ¶ 3.) Davis has been separated from his wife for almost 20 years and their dissolution action commenced 15 years ago; his wife is the sole owner of her home in Los Angeles and the couple’s former home in Idaho. In 2019, Bagby’s counsel stated that he would levy upon and sell Davis’s Indian Wells, California property to satisfy Bagby’s judgment. (Ex. 1; Davis dec., ¶ 6.)[] That would render Davis homeless. (Davis dec., ¶ 6.) As a result, Davis has no ties left in California. (Davis dec., ¶¶ 3-6.) Davis’s mother is 101 years old, in fragile health, and lives in Florida. (Davis dec., ¶ 5.) Davis’s mother needs to be taken care of by Davis, who is now taking care of her as he lives in Florida. (Davis dec., ¶ 13.) Davis’s sister lives in Florida. (Davis dec., ¶ 5.)

For the foregoing reasons, Davis moved to Florida and has been leasing a home in New Smyrna Beach, Florida since June. (Davis dec., ¶¶ 7-8; Ex. 6.) Davis is registered to vote in Florida, and has voted in the Florida 2020 election, and not registered to vote in California. (Davis dec., ¶ 9; Ex. 7.) Davis has a driver’s license issued by Florida. (Davis dec., ¶ 10; Ex. 8.) Davis receives mail, e.g., bills, in Florida. (Davis dec., ¶ 16; Ex. 16.) Davis notified the Social Security Administration/Medicare of his Florida domicile/residence. (Davis dec., ¶ 11; Ex. 9.) Davis changed his address with the California State Bar to Florida. (Davis dec., ¶ 12; Ex. 10.) Davis transported his leased car to Florida and has registered it in Florida. (Davis dec., ¶ 13; Ex. 11.) Davis insured his leased car with a Florida-based insurance company. (Davis dec., ¶ 13; Ex. 12.) Davis’s personal property has been transported to Florida. (Davis dec., ¶ 13; Ex. 13.) Davis opened an account with a Florida bank. (Davis dec., ¶ 14; Ex. 14.) Davis filed a declaration of domicile (under penalty of perjury and subject to a $5,000 fine and five years in prison) declaring that he is a resident of Volusia county, Florida. (Davis dec., ¶ 15; Ex. 15.)

Accordingly, the Motion to Claim Exemption is granted and the Motion for Assigning Order is denied.



Case Number: ****3174    Hearing Date: September 02, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: September 2, 2020

Case Name: Bagby v. Davis, et al.

Case No.: ****3174

Matter: Motion to Expunge Abstract of Judgment

Moving Party: Defendant Joseph Davis

Responding Party: Plaintiff Douglas A. Bagby


Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Expunge Abstract of Judgment is denied.


Defendant Joseph Davis seeks to expunge Plaintiff’s abstract of the prior $27 million judgment in this action in light of the fact that such judgment was vacated and a new judgment for $5 million was entered.

Davis has cited no authority that expungement is proper. To the contrary, “[t]here is no statutory procedure for ‘expunging’ an abstract of judgment.” (Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Charlton (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1070.) Instead, “by statute, [an abstract] can be extinguished only by the recording of an acknowledgment of satisfaction of the underlying judgment or by the judgment creditor's release of the lien.” (Ibid. (emphasis in original).)

Further, Code Civ. Proc. ; 697.360(b) provides that if a money judgment is reduced, an existing abstract of judgment is also reduced to conform to the new judgment, even if a modified abstract or order reducing the judgment is not recorded. (See also 8 Witkin, Cal. Proc. (5th ed. 2020) Enforcement of Judgment, ; 75 (Amount of Lien); Ahart, Cal. Prac. Guide Enf. J. & Debt (The Rutter Group 2020) Ch. 6B-5 (6:198) [“If a money judgment subject to a real property judgment lien is reduced in amount, the lien automatically continues in the amount of the reduced judgment. The judgment creditor may (but need not) record an abstract of the modified judgment or a certified copy of the modification order.”].) Additionally, Code Civ. Proc. ; 697.360(a) provides that after a money judgment is reduced, a new abstract of judgment or an order reducing the judgment can be recorded, both of which would supersede the prior abstract. (See also Code Civ. Proc. ; 674(b).)

In sum, (1) an abstract cannot be expunged and (2) there is no need to expunge the prior abstract of judgment which has been reduced by operation of the law upon the Court reducing the judgment in this action. The Motion is, therefore, denied.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where NEMECEK & COLE is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BAGBY DOUGLAS A

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ALTHOLZ ANDREW P

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BAKER ROBERT CRAIG