This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/27/2018 at 16:45:47 (UTC).

IAT WONG VS FIRST PICKS HOLDINGS LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/08/2017 IAT WONG filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against FIRST PICKS HOLDINGS LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1700

  • Filing Date:

    08/08/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

FIRST PICKS BREAD COMPANY V LP

WONG IAT

Defendants

FIRST PICKS BREAD COMPANY LLC

FIRST PICKS BREAD COMPANY III LP

FIRST PICKS GP LLC

FIRST PICKS BREAD MANAGEMENT LLC

FIRST PICKS BREAED COMPANY IV LP

FIRST PICKS HOLDINGS LLC

FIRST PICKS BREAD COMPANY II LP

FIRST PICKS BREAD COMPANY XI LP

FIRST PICKS BREAD COMPANY VII LP

MAH GLENN

MAH CLARENCE

FIRST PICKS BREAD COMPANY IX LP

JOHNSON JOSEPH KEYSHAWN

FIRST PICKS BREAD COMPANY X LP

FIRST PICKS BREAD COMPANY VI LP

FIRST PICKS BREAD COMPANY VIII LP

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SHAFFER JOHN ESQ.

 

Court Documents

DECLARATION OF AMANDA MURRAY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF?S REQUEST TO ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT [DECLARATION OF IAT WONG, PLAINTIFF?S DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT, AND PROPOSED JUDGMENT FILED CONCURRENTLY HEREWI

1/23/2018: DECLARATION OF AMANDA MURRAY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF?S REQUEST TO ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT [DECLARATION OF IAT WONG, PLAINTIFF?S DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT, AND PROPOSED JUDGMENT FILED CONCURRENTLY HEREWI

Proof of Service

1/23/2018: Proof of Service

DECLARATION OF IAT WONG IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT {DECLARATION OF AMANDA MURRAY, PLAINTIFF'S DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT, AND PROPOSED JUDGMENT FILED CONCURRENTLY HEREWI

1/23/2018: DECLARATION OF IAT WONG IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT {DECLARATION OF AMANDA MURRAY, PLAINTIFF'S DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT, AND PROPOSED JUDGMENT FILED CONCURRENTLY HEREWI

PLAINTIFF?S DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST TO ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT [DECLARATIONS OF IAT WONG AND AMANDA MURRAY, AND PROPOSED JUDGMENT FILED CONCURRENTLY HEREWITH]

1/23/2018: PLAINTIFF?S DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST TO ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT [DECLARATIONS OF IAT WONG AND AMANDA MURRAY, AND PROPOSED JUDGMENT FILED CONCURRENTLY HEREWITH]

Minute Order

2/6/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

5/29/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

11/28/2017: Minute Order

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

11/9/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

11/9/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

11/14/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

11/14/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

11/14/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

11/14/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

11/14/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

11/14/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

11/29/2017: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

11/8/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

11/8/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

41 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/18/2018
  • DocketREQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/18/2018
  • DocketPartial Dismissal (with Prejudice); Filed by IAT WONG (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/12/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 49; (OSC-Failure to File Default Judg; Continued by Court) -

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/12/2018
  • DocketMinute Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/10/2018
  • DocketPLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE WHETHER SANCTIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY 1) FILE POS, 2) MAKE APPLICATION FOR SERVICE BY PUBLICATION, 3) FILE DEFAULT, 4) FILE CMC STATEMENT, AND 5) FILE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/10/2018
  • DocketReply/Response; Filed by IAT WONG (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/29/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 49; (OSC-Failure to File Default Judg; Continued by Court) -

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/29/2018
  • DocketMinute Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 49; Case Management Conference - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • DocketMinute Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
95 More Docket Entries
  • 08/25/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by IAT WONG (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/25/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by IAT WONG (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/25/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by IAT WONG (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketOSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/08/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by IAT WONG (Plaintiff); FIRST PICKS BREAD COMPANY V LP (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/08/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/08/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF PROMISSORY NOTE 2. BREACH OF COLLATERAL ASSIGNMENT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****1700    Hearing Date: December 17, 2020    Dept: 49

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Iat Wong,

Plaintiff,

Case No.

****1700

v.

[Tentative] Ruling

First Pick Holdings LLC, et al.

Defendants.

Hearing Date: December 17, 2020

Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

Creditor Arden Silverman’s Motion for Charging Orders and a Restraining Order

Moving Parties: Creditor Arden Silverman

Responding Party: Debtors Joseph Keyshawn Johnson and Jennifer Johnson

Ruling: Creditor Arden Silverman’s motion for charging orders is granted. The request for a restraining order is denied.

As a preliminary matter, the parties raise arguments pertaining to an appeal which was pending when the parties submitted their respective papers. However, on November 18, 2020, the Court of Appeal for the Second District affirmed the trial court order denying Debtor Joseph Keyshawn Johnson’s motion to vacate judgment. Therefore, any arguments pertaining thereto are moot.

Creditor Arden Silverman (“Creditor”) brings this motion pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. ; 708.310 and Corporations Code ; 17705.03.

Code Civ. Proc. ;708.310 provides:

[i]f a money judgment is rendered against a partner or member but not against the partnership or limited liability company, the judgment debtor's interest in the partnership or limited liability company may be applied toward the satisfaction of the judgment by an order charging the judgment debtor's interest pursuant to Section 15907.3, 16504, or 17705.03 of the Corporations Code.

Corporations Code ;17705.03(a) provides:

[o]n application by a judgment creditor of a member or transferee, a court may enter a charging order against the transferable interest of the judgment debtor for the unsatisfied amount of the judgment. A charging order constitutes a lien on a judgment debtor's transferable interest and requires the limited liability company to pay over to the person to which the charging order was issued any distribution that would otherwise be paid to the judgment debtor.

Creditor contends that Debtor Joseph Keyshawn Johnson (“Debtor”) and Debtor’s spouse Jennifer Marie Johnson (collectively “Debtors”) are members of KJMKLV Development, LLC (“the LLC”). Creditor contends that Debtors transferred title in real property to the LLC in June 2018 for no consideration. Creditor now seeks an order charging his judgment interests against the membership interests in the LLC, and on the transferable interest in any distributions from the LLC to Debtors.

Creditor submits a copy of the LLC’s Articles of Organization which reflect Debtors as managing members alongside London Johnson, Vance Johnson, and Shyla Johnson, which Creditor contends are Debtors’ children. (Motion Exh. D.) Creditor also submits a copy of a Grant Deed, reflecting that on April 18, 2018, Land Shak Holdings, LLC granted the subject real property to Debtors as husband and wife as community property. (Id. Exh. B.) On May 31, 2018, Debtors transferred title in the property to KJMKLV Development, LLC. (Id. Exh. C.) The Grant Deed reflects that “[t]his is a bonafide gift and the grantor received nothing in return, R & T 11911.”

Debtors submit a limited opposition. Debtors do not dispute any of the evidence discussed above. Rather, Debtors argue that Creditor’s request for a restraining order exceeds the scope of Code Civ. Proc. ; 708.520, and is not necessary.

Based on the foregoing, Creditor’s motion for charging order imposing a lien on the membership interests of Debtors in the LLC shall be granted in the amount of the current writ of execution less any partial satisfaction of judgment. A charging order is also issued on the transferable interest of the judgment debtors for the unsatisfied amount of the judgment pursuant to Corporations Code ;17705.03(a).

Creditor seeks a restraining order pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. ; 708.520(a) “preventing the debtor and his spouse from transferring their membership payments to the debtor or his spouse and instead directing that any distributions or payments be made to Creditor until further order of the court.” (Motion 9:1-2.) Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. ; 708.520(a), “[w]hen an application is made pursuant to Section 708.510 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.”

However, Creditor has not made an application pursuant to ; 708.510 to this Court. Rather, the motion for charging orders is made pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. ; 708.310. Additionally, subsection (b) provides that “[t]he court may issue an order pursuant to this section upon a showing of need for the order.” Creditor makes no argument as to why this order is necessary, nor does Creditor submit any evidence in support of this request.

Creditor’s request for a restraining order is denied.

Date: December 17, 2020

Honorable Stuart M. Rice

Judge of the Superior Court



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where FIRST PICKS BREAD COMPANY LLC is a litigant