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 and EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JOHN P. DOYLE
EDWARD B. MORETON
BAGBY DOUGLAS A.
DAVIS JOSEPH DANIEL
GRASTORF EDWARD J.
DOES 1 TO 10
BAGBY DOUGLAS A.
WALTERS CORSON LAWANNA
NEMECEK & COLE
BAGBY DOUGLAS A. ESQ.
BAKER ROBERT CRAIG
ALTHOLZ ANDREW PETER
FRIEDMAN JOSHUA P
DAVIS JOSEPH DANIEL ESQ.
NEMECEK FRANK WYNN
RODGERS DIANA KREINMAN
10/1/2018: DEFENDANT JOSEPH DANIEL DAVIS' NOTICE OF INTENTION TO MOVE FOR NEW TRIAL
11/27/2018: Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal
3/13/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATI...)
3/15/2019: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF BENCH WARRANT
5/31/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATI...)
6/17/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATI...)
6/27/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUED ORAP HEARING
4/24/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ORDE...)
2/9/2018: ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE
11/8/2018: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore Ermelinda Hernandez, CSR 12257
11/30/2018: Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103
1/29/2019: Notice - Notice Designating Trial Exhibit for Transmittal by this Court or Plaintiff to the Court of Appeal
10/11/2018: Motion for New Trial -
2/9/2018: Minute Order -
3/2/2018: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF OTHER ORDER
5/2/2018: ORDER STRIKING STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION
11/17/2017: ORIGINAL PROOF OF SERVICE: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT; ETC.
9/21/2017: NOTICE OF HEARING AND PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISS THE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING ARBITRATION; DECLARATION OF JOSEPH DANIEL DAVIS [CCP ?128
DocketWrit of Execution ((Riverside)); Filed by Douglas A. Bagby (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAbstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Filed by Douglas A. Bagby (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketAssociation of Attorney; Filed by Douglas A. Bagby (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Douglas A. Bagby (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 44, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination ( of Joseph Daniel Davis) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examinati...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketStipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand ReporterRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice ( of Continued ORAP hearing); Filed by Douglas A. Bagby (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 44, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination ( of Joseph Daniel Davis) - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketStipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter; Filed by Douglas A. Bagby (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENTRead MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT, ETCRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Douglas A. Bagby (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC663174 Hearing Date: October 15, 2020 Dept: 58
Judge John P. Doyle
Hearing Date: October 15, 2020
Case Name: Bagby v. Davis, et al.
Case No.: BC663174
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: BC663174 Hearing Date: September 02, 2020 Dept: 58
Judge John P. Doyle
Hearing Date: September 2, 2020
Case Name: Bagby v. Davis, et al.
Case No.: BC663174
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.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases