The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION PERMITTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER (DOC. 21)
Plaintiff, Joe Hand Promotions, obtained default judgment against Defendants, Seven Melendez Gonzales and Wendy M. Raygoza, d/b/a Fattie Albert's Pizza Co., in the amount of $20,800.00 for violations of various telecommunications statutes, namely 47 U.S.C. §§ 553, 605, and for conversion of plaintiff's property. Doc. 16. Judgment was entered September 30, 2010. Id . The complete balance of the judgment remains unpaid. Plaintiff now seeks to enforce the judgment under the laws of California pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a). Doc. 21.
The violations and conversion occurred in the operation of a business known as Fattie Albert's Pizza Co., a/k/a Fatte Alberts Pizza Company, located in Hanford, California. Defendant is the owner of a liquor license bearing number 443997. Declaration of David J. Cook, Doc. 21-3, ¶5. Plaintiff seeks the appointment of a receiver to take possession of and sell the liquor license. Doc. 21.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 66 provides for the appointment of receivers:
These rules govern an action in which the appointment of a receiver is sought or a receiver sues or is sued. But the practice in administering an estate by a receiver or a similar court-appointed officer must accord with the historical practice in federal courts or with a local rule. An action in which a receiver has been appointed may be dismissed only by court order.
A recent Northern District of California decision addressed the application of Rule 66 vis-a-vis state law in a similar circumstance:
... Rule 66 does not provide the specifics for appointing a receiver to sell a liquor license in satisfaction of a money judgment. See Office Depot Inc. v. Zuccarini , 596 F.3d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 2010) (Rule 66 does not specify proper location for appointment of a receiver; therefore, state law governs this issue). Because no federal statute applies to the appointment of a receiver for the sale of a liquor license, Rule 69(a) dictates that state law is followed in this instance. See In re Levander , 180 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 1999) (Rule 69(a) allows judgment-creditors to use state law to collect on their debts).
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Huezo , 2011 WL 1134265, 1 (N.D. Cal. 2011).
Under California law, Plaintiff is entitled to levy its judgment upon the property of defendant pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 669.710, which provides:
Except as otherwise provided by law, all property that is subject to enforcement of a money judgment pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 695.010) of Chapter 1 is subject to levy under a writ of execution to satisfy a money judgment.
With some exceptions, "all property of the judgment debtor is subject to enforcement of a money judgment." Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 695.010(a).
Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 708.630 specifically permits the application of a liquor license to the satisfaction of a money judgment. This statute, which is not discussed in Plaintiff's brief, also provides for the appointment of a receiver:
(a) The judgment debtor's interest in an alcoholic beverage license may be applied to the satisfaction of a money judgment only as provided in this section.
(b) The court may appoint a receiver for the purpose of transferring the judgment debtor's interest in an alcoholic beverage license that is transferable under Article 5 (commencing with Section 24070) of Chapter 6 of Division 9 of the Business and Professions Code, unless the judgment debtor shows in the proceeding to appoint a receiver that the amount of delinquent taxes described in Section 24049 of the Business and Professions Code and claims of creditors with priority over the ...