This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/03/2019 at 05:04:56 (UTC).

VICKERS HOLDING & FINANCE INC VS JOSSIV KIM ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/01/2017 VICKERS HOLDING FINANCE INC filed an Other - Other Judgment lawsuit against JOSSIV KIM. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4584

  • Filing Date:

    09/01/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Other - Other Judgment

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

EDWARD B. MORETON

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

VICKERS HOLDING & FINANCE INC

Defendants

USA DUO DESIGN INC

KIM JOSSIV

KIM ANGELINA

US DUO DESIGN INC. A CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

STOLYAR OLEG

 

Court Documents

DECLARATION OF OLEG STOLYAR IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFENDANTS' DEFAULT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SANCIIONSIL)ISMISSAL

6/1/2018: DECLARATION OF OLEG STOLYAR IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFENDANTS' DEFAULT IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SANCIIONSIL)ISMISSAL

PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFENDANTS' DEFAULT IN SUPPORT OF COURT ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SANCTIONS/DISMISSAL

6/1/2018: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFENDANTS' DEFAULT IN SUPPORT OF COURT ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SANCTIONS/DISMISSAL

Minute Order

6/8/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING AND OF OSC RE: SANCTIONS/DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR

6/22/2018: NOTICE OF RULING AND OF OSC RE: SANCTIONS/DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR

DECLARATION OF OLEG STOLYAR IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ENTRY OF DEFAULT AT HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANTS JOSSIV KIM AND ANG

7/11/2018: DECLARATION OF OLEG STOLYAR IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ENTRY OF DEFAULT AT HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANTS JOSSIV KIM AND ANG

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ENTRY OF DEFAULT AT HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; AND REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANTS JOSSIV KIM AND ANGELINA KIM

7/11/2018: PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ENTRY OF DEFAULT AT HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; AND REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANTS JOSSIV KIM AND ANGELINA KIM

Minute Order

8/7/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANTS JOSSIV KIM AND ANGELINA KIM; AND OF OSC RE: OBTAINING ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

8/20/2018: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANTS JOSSIV KIM AND ANGELINA KIM; AND OF OSC RE: OBTAINING ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Order

10/31/2018: Order

Minute Order

10/31/2018: Minute Order

Declaration

11/2/2018: Declaration

Notice of Ruling

11/2/2018: Notice of Ruling

Proof of Service by Mail

11/6/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11/6/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

11/6/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Declaration

11/6/2018: Declaration

Declaration

11/6/2018: Declaration

Request for Dismissal

11/6/2018: Request for Dismissal

84 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/25/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 49; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (FOR TURNOVER ORDER IN AID OF EXECUTION [C.C.P 699.040];)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 44, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination ( of Jossiv Kim, Angelina Kim, and Jossiv Kim on behalf of US Duo Design Inc.) - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 44, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Ex-Parte Proceedings

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Ex-Parte Proceedings RE TURNOVER ORDER IN AID OF EXECUTION)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examinati...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TURNOVER ORDER IN AID OF EXECUTION [C.C.P 699.040];); Filed by VICKERS HOLDING & FINANCE INC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by VICKERS HOLDING & FINANCE INC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by VICKERS HOLDING & FINANCE INC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by VICKERS HOLDING & FINANCE INC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 44, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
170 More Docket Entries
  • 09/05/2017
  • DocketOrder-Protective; Filed by VICKERS HOLDING & FINANCE INC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/05/2017
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2017-09-05 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/05/2017
  • DocketTEMPORARY PROTECTIVE ORDER

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • DocketDECLARATION OF ELENA VOLKOVA IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR NONDISCLOSURE OF COMPLAINT FOR 30 DAYS PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE 482.050

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • DocketVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: (1) RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN MONETARY JUDGMENT - CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. 1713, ET SEQ.; ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • DocketCIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by VICKERS HOLDING & FINANCE INC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/15/2015
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by VICKERS HOLDING & FINANCE INC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Complaint Information

. A(O\\?/ . Q\%g\

Pursuant to CIEP § 482.050, plaintiff requests that the filing of this action not be made public during the period specified in CCP § 82 050.

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP OLEG STOLYAR (SBN 229265)

2 [|ELIAS DABAIE (SBN 288010) | |

- astolyar@akingump.com L FI ' .3 || edabaie@akingump.com Superior Court of Califurnia | 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Sulte 600 County of Los Angeles 4 |{Los Angeles, CA 90067- 3010 ' g Telephone: 310.229.1000 SEP 012017 5 || Facsimile: 310.229.1001 _ | Sherri R. Cagter, Exec Officer/Clerk 6 || Attorneys for Plaintiff By i Deputy VICKERS HOLDING & FINANCE INC. Moses Soto. ’ -4 diu

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT 10 11 || VICKERS HOLDING & FINANCE, INC. | CaseNo. BC 6745 8 4 12 Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOli: ; 13 VSs. (1) RECOGNITION AND

ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN

14 || JOSSIV KIM, an individual; ANGELINA MONETARY JUDGMENT - Cal. Code KIM, an individual; US DUQO DESIGN, Civ. Proc. §§ 1713, et seq.; 15 |[INC., a Nevada corporation; and DOES 1 | through 50, inclusive, - (2) FRAUDULENT TRANSFER - Cal. 16 ' Civ. Code § 3439.04; Defendants 17 (3) FRAUDULENT TRANSFER - Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.05; 18 | (4) CIVIL CONSPIRACY; and 19

(5) ALTER EGO LIABILITY 20 '

21 22 n mEEm ho 23 mEmm) CICT M~ B i 24 I-:C‘?‘;-IS-"-.::& . S 2

N o0 & % g bt

WHTSIER

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****4584 Hearing Date: August 25, 2022 Dept: 01

Moving Party: Plaintiff and Judgment Creditor Vickers Holding & Finance, Inc.

Responding Party: Defendants Jossiv Kim and Angelina Kim, and Third Party Alex Anton Kim

Ruling: Jossiv Kim’s and Angelina Kim’s claims of exemption are granted in part as to $8,725 in equity in the watches, and denied as to all other items. Alex Anton Kim’s claims are granted in part as to the Dodge Charger seat and the racing wheel and pedals and denied as to the computer.

Plaintiff and judgment creditor Vickers Holding & Finance, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) opposes the claims of exemption of defendants Jossiv Kim and Angelina Kim (“Defendants”) and their son, Alex Anton Kim. Because Alex Anton Kim has the same last name as Defendants, the Court will at times refer to him as “Alex.” No disrespect is intended.

Background

The Court entered judgment against Defendants on November 6, 2018. On March 18, 2022, Defendant Angelina Kim made a claim of exemption with respect to a wage garnishment sought by Plaintiff. In her claim of exemption, Defendant states that she earns $1026.70 per month, all of which she claims as exempt. She also states that her 20-year-old son, Alex Anton Kim, earns $3,000 per month, but she does not state the source of that income. She claims that neither she, her husband Jossiv, nor her son Anton own any cash, bank accounts, vehicles, real estate equity, or any other personal property at all. She claimed monthly household expenses of $4,108. Plaintiff opposed the claim of exemption, and the exemption was denied when Angelina Kim failed to file a response.

The Instant Claims

1. Claim by Defendants

On July 13, 2022, following the apparent seizure of certain items by the Los Angeles County Sheriff, Jossiv Kim served a claim of exemption contending that items identified as “2 car seats from Chrysler Pacifica 2020, 1 Omega Sea Master watch, 1 Omega De Ville Watch, 1 Tablet” were exempt under Code Civ. Proc. 704.060, 703.140(B), 704.010, and 704.040, as the property was “a motor vehicle, the proceeds of an execution sale of a motor vehicle, or the proceeds of Insurance or other indemnification for the loss, damage, or destruction of a motor vehicle” and/or “tools. Implements, materials, uniforms, furnishings, books, equipment, a commercial motor vehicle, a vessel, or other personal property used in the trade, business or profession of the judgment debtor or spouse.” (See Gurovich Decl., Ex. 3.)

Under Code Civ. Proc. 703.580(b), at a hearing on a claim of exemption, “the exemption claimant has the burden of proof.” In meeting this burden, the one who claims the exemption must establish the right by evidence or facts; an affidavit which merely follows the language of the statute and states nothing more than conclusions of law is insufficient. (Bertozzi v. Swisher (1938) 27 Cal.App.2d 739, 743 [“The prevailing rule is that ‘one who contends for an exemption must establish his right by evidence, by facts,’ and that an affidavit which merely follows the language of the statute states nothing more than a conclusion of law and proves nothing.”]; Le Font v. Rankin (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 433, 435.)

A. Watches

Defendants contend that five of the watches seized (the two mentioned in the claim of exemption, plus a Frederique Constant watch, a Versace watch, and a Raymond Weir watch) are exempt under the $8,725 Jewelry exemption contained in Code Civ. Proc. 704.040 (“Jewelry, heirlooms, and works of art are exempt to the extent that the aggregate equity therein does not exceed eight thousand seven hundred twenty-five dollars ($8,725).”) (Defendants’ Response, p. 2.) Per Defendants, the Frederique Constant watch should be valued at $3,011, the Omega Seamaster at $2,375, and the De Ville at $1,500, as they are used watches and these are the values for similar used watches. (Id.) However, neither Defendants nor their counsel authenticate the documents attached to their response and have provided no under-oath information at all. One image, apparently taken from Etsy, depicts an Omega watch with a square face, but contains no information about the model of the watch, there is no indication that this is a model comparable to the watch at issue. The other depicts a Seamaster watch, but it is apparently on sale, discounted from a list price of $3,475, and there is no indication what metal it is made from, an important concern when dealing with jewelry. Although both of these images were in Plaintiff’s papers, this is only because they were attached to Defendants’ original claim of exemption, and they must still be authenticated. Although Defendants state that an estimate is attached for the Frederique Constant watch, none is attached. Defendants’ response makes no mention of the Versace watch or the Raymond Weir watch at all.

Defendants have the burden to establish the exemption they claim. While the watches are undoubtedly “jewelry” under Code Civ. Proc. 704.040, entitling Defendants to the “aggregate equity” in them up to $8,725, Defendants have not submitted any admissible evidence that the value of any of the watches is less than the exemption. Their claim of exemption under Code Civ. Proc. 704.040 is therefore granted in part as to $8,725 of the equity in the watches. When the watches are sold, Defendants are entitled to $8,725 of the proceeds.

B. Car Seats

Defendants contend that the car seats which were seized are subject to exemption under either Code Civ. Proc. 704.010 or 704.060, which provide:

704.010. (a) Any combination of the following is exempt in the amount of three thousand three hundred twenty-five dollars ($3,325):

(1) The aggregate equity in motor vehicles.

(2) The proceeds of an execution sale of a motor vehicle.

(3) The proceeds of insurance or other indemnification for the loss, damage, or destruction of a motor vehicle.

[ … ]

704.060. (a) Tools, implements, instruments, materials, uniforms, furnishings, books, equipment, one commercial motor vehicle, one vessel, and other personal property are exempt to the extent that the aggregate equity therein does not exceed:

(1) Eight thousand seven hundred twenty-five dollars ($8,725), if reasonably necessary to and actually used by the judgment debtor in the exercise of the trade, business, or profession by which the judgment debtor earns a livelihood.

Defendants contend that the seats are part of a motor vehicle belonging to Jossiv Kim and are therefore subject to the $3,325 exemption for motor vehicles. As with the watch documents, the motor vehicle financing documents are not authenticated. Nonetheless, the seats are not a “motor vehicle,” they are simply personal property. Any exemption would apply to the motor vehicle from which they were removed, not to the seats themselves.

Defendants also contend that the seats are subject to the $8,725 exemption for tools “reasonably necessary to and actually used by the judgment debtor in the exercise of the trade, business, or profession by which the judgment debtor earns a livelihood.” Defendants admit that Jossiv Kim is not working. (Defendants’ Response, p. 3.) Jossiv Kim therefore does not actually use the seats in the exercise of any “trade, business or profession.” He is not “earning a livelihood.” Defendants’ argument that this exemption, which is written in the present tense, “does not require current employment,” is presented without authority and is meritless.

For the foregoing reasons, the claim of exemption is denied as to the car seats.

C. Tablet

Defendants, who have the burden of establishing an exemption, do not mention the seized tablet at all. They have therefore failed to carry their burden, and the claim of exemption is denied as to the tablet.

2. Claim by Alex Anton Kim

On or about July 18, 2022, Alex Anton Kim made a claim of exemption asserting that the following items were owned by him, and not Defendants:

1. 1 Passenger Car Seat from 2018 Dodge Charger SRT Hellcat[.]

2. 1 PC Work Station

3. 1 Printer Brother DCPL2550DW

4. 2 Computer Monitors

5. 1 Ledger Cryptocurrency Stick

6. 1 Racing wheel with pedals Gaming Device

“At a hearing on a third-party claim, the third person has the burden of proof.” (Code Civ. Proc. 720.360.) “The third party claimant is required to introduce evidence that it owns the attached property.” (Whitehouse v. Six Corp. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 527, 534-535.) Once the third party accomplishes this, the burden shifts to the creditor to establish that the property was fraudulently transferred. (Id. at 535.) A transfer made or obligation incurred is fraudulent, that is, “voidable as to a creditor,” where the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation:

(1) With actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor.

(2) Without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor either:

(A) Was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction.

(B) Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that the debtor would incur, debts beyond the debtor's ability to pay as they became due. (Civ. Code 3439.04(a).)

Likewise, a transfer is voidable as to present creditors where the debtor “made the transfer or incurred the obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and the debtor was insolvent at that time or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation.” (Civ. Code 3439.05(a).)

These categories are disjunctive; that is, a transfer may be either actually fraudulent, conducted with intent to defraud creditors, or constructively fraudulent, conducted with insufficient consideration and with pending or actual insolvency. (See Mejia v. Reed (2003) 31 Cal.4th 657, 664.)

In his declaration submitted in response to the request for hearing, Alex asserts that he is the owner of the Dodge Charger Seat (#1), the computer (#2), and the racing wheel (#6). He makes no mention of the printer (#3), the computer monitors (#4), or the ledger cryptocurrency stick (#5), and his claim is therefore denied as to those items.

A. Dodge Charger Seat

Alex submits evidence that he took title to the Dodge Charger on or about August 11, 2021, and that he paid partly by card and partly with cash. (Alex Decl., 2 and Ex. 4.) Alex’s name appears on the title certificate. (Alex Decl., Ex. 4.) Alex has therefore established that he owns the Dodge Charger (including the seat), shifting the burden to Plaintiff to establish the transaction was voidable in its favor by a preponderance of the evidence. (See Whitehouse v. Six Corp., supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at 604.)

The Court has reviewed the deposition testimony provided by Plaintiff, including that of Jossiv Kim, Angelina Kim, and Alex Anton Kim. Angelina Kim testified in 2019 that she leased a Dodge Charger (See Gurovich Decl., Ex. 11), but given that the title certificate Alex submitted is dated August 11, 2021, it is not clear that this is the same car. The December 16, 2019 testimony of Jossiv Kim is likewise ambiguous as to whether the Dodge Charger at issue is the same car, and additionally, at no point does Mr. Kim say that he, rather than Alex, owns the car. (See Gurovich Decl., Ex. 9 and 10.) Although Alex testified in late 2020 that he had no bank accounts and his parents paid all of his expenses, there is no reference to a Dodge Charger (Alex refers to expenses “for the car” on page 99 but it is unclear what car he means or whether he means the car to which the title certificate pertains). (See Gurovich Decl., Ex. 12, p. 99.) Although Alex testified in May 2021 that he only uses Apple Cash to transfer money to his friends, the down payment for the Dodge Charger was paid with Apple Cash in August 2021. (See Gurovich Reply Decl., Ex. 1.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has not carried its burden to establish a fraudulent transfer and will therefore adjudge Alex’s claim to the Dodge Charger seat to be valid, and order that the Dodge Charger seat be returned to him pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. 720.390.

B. PC Work Station (Computer)

Alex states in his declaration that he built the computer which was seized, that it was upgraded throughout the years, that he uses it for gaming, and that it contains billing documents from his work as an appliance technician and his personal and business emails. (Alex Decl., 5-6.) He states that the computer is operated by a password which only he has, and that his parents do not know how to operate it and have no interest in the games it contains. (Alex Decl., 6-7.) This evidence is sufficient to infer Alex’s ownership of the computer. The burden therefore shifts to Plaintiff to show a fraudulent transfer.

Plaintiff submitted evidence that the components of the computer were purchased at a time when Alex was a minor, using Angelina Kim’s American Express card. (See Gurovich Decl., Ex. 4 [Claim of Exemption], within its own Ex. 2 [Amazon receipts for computer components]; Gurovich Decl., Ex. 15 [American Express statement]; see also Alex Decl., 5 [description of computer components].) Plaintiff also submitted evidence that at least until late 2020, Defendants paid all of Alex’s expenses. (Gurovich Decl., Ex. 12.) Judgment was entered against Defendants in November of 2018, well before these purchases were made. There is no indication that Alex provided any consideration to Defendants, and therefore it appears by a preponderance of the evidence that the purchase of the computer for Alex was a fraudulent transfer of Defendants’ assets. (See Civ. Code 3439.05(a).) The Court will therefore deny Alex’s claim to the computer.

C. Racing Wheel and Pedals

Alex declares that he owns the racing game steering wheel and pedals (collectively, the “Racing Wheel”), attaching a receipt for the purchase bearing his name and address and dated March 9, 2022. (Alex Decl., 4 and Ex. 6.) This evidence is sufficient to infer Alex’s ownership of the Racing Wheel, shifting the burden to Plaintiff to show a fraudulent transfer.

Plaintiff presents no evidence supporting an inference that the purchase was a fraudulent transfer. Although Alex testified in late 2020 that his parents paid all of his expenses, there is no indication that they were still doing so in March of 2022 when the Racing Wheel was bought, nor that any credit card belonging to Defendants was used in the purchase. Plaintiff has therefore not carried its burden to establish, by preponderance, that the purchase of the Racing Wheel was a voidable transaction, and the Court will adjudge Alex’s claim to the Racing Wheel to be valid, and order that the Racing Wheel (including the pedals) be returned to him pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. 720.390.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the claim of exemption of defendants Jossiv Kim and Angelina Kim is granted in part as to $8,725 of the aggregate equity of the watches, and is denied in part as to the balance of the equity in the watches, and denied as to the car seats and the tablet. Plaintiff to give notice.

The third-party claim of Alex Anton Kim is granted as to the Dodge Charger seat and the racing game steering wheel and pedals and denied as to the computer. Alex Anton Kim to give notice.



Case Number: ****4584    Hearing Date: November 10, 2020    Dept: 49

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Vickers Holding & Finance, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

Case No.

****4584

v.

[Tentative] Ruling

Jossiv Kim, et al.,  

Defendants.

Hearing Date: November 10, 2020

Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

(1) Judgment Debtors’ Motion to Modify or Set Aside the Assignment Order

Moving Party:  Defendants/Judgment Debtors Jossiv and Angela Kim

Responding Party:      Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Vickers Holding & Finance, Inc.

Ruling: Judgment debtors’ motion to modify or set aside the assignment order is denied.

Date: November 10, 2020

Honorable Stuart M. Rice

Judge of the Superior Court



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where VICKERS HOLDING & FINANCE INC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer STOLYAR OLEG