Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dish Network L.L.C. v. Sonicview Usa, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

August 21, 2013

DISH NETWORK L.L.C., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
SONICVIEW USA, INC., et al., Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR DANIAL PIERCE'S CLAIMS OF EXEMPTION [DOCS. 330, 331]

M. JAMES LORENZ, District Judge.

On May 31, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiffs Dish Network L.L.C., Echostar Technologies L.L.C., and Nagrastar L.L.C.'s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 181.) An order entering judgment against Defendants Sonicview USA, Inc., Roberto Sanz, Danial Pierce, and Alan Phu ("Sonicview Defendants") in the amount of $64, 980, 200, and against Defendants Duane Bernard and Courtney Bernard in the amount of $984, 800 jointly and severally followed. (Doc. 182.) Plaintiffs are currently attempting to enforce and collect on the judgment against Mr. Pierce, including levying funds in his account with Ameriprise.

On March 22, 2013, copies of the Notice of Levy, Writ of Execution, Exemptions from the Enforcement of Judgments, and Current Dollar Amounts of the Exemptions from the Enforcement of Judgments with respect to Ameriprise were served on Mr. Pierce. (Doc. 319.) Thereafter, on April 2, 2013, Mr. Pierce filed a Claim of Exemption with Ameriprise and copied the levying officer with respect to "the entire amount of money on deposit with [Ameriprise] in his IRA account." (Doc. 330-3, Ex.1 at 2-3.) Defendant claimed California-law exemptions under California Code of Civil Procedure ยง 704.115. ( Id. ) To support his claim, Mr. Pierce alleged that "tax-qualified IRA(s) are exempt from execution by judgment creditors, such as Plaintiffs in the above-entitled action." ( Id. ) Plaintiffs now move to oppose that claim of exemption. (Doc. 330.) Mr. Pierce opposes Plaintiffs' motion. (Doc. 343.)

On March 28, 2013, copies of the Notice of Levy, Writ of Execution, Exemptions from the Enforcement of Judgments, and Current Dollar Amounts of the Exemptions from the Enforcement of Judgments with respect to U.S. Bank were served on Mr. Pierce's wife, S. Pierce. (Doc. 331-3, Ex. 2 at 5.) Thereafter, on April 2, 2013, Mr. and Mrs. Pierce filed a Claim of Exemption with U.S. Bank and copied the levying officer with respect to "the entire amount of money on deposit with [US Bank] in her separate property account." (Doc. 331-3, Ex.1 at 2-3.) Defendant claimed exemption on the ground that Mrs. Pierce's account is separate property. ( Id. ) Plaintiffs now move to oppose that claim of exemption. (Doc. 331.) Mr. Pierce filed a combined opposition to Plaintiffs' motion with his opposition to Plaintiffs' previous motion. (Doc. 343.) However, the opposition makes no reference to the U.S. Bank deposits or the claim of exemption to Mrs. Pierce's funds on deposit there. ( See id. )

The Court found these motions suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d.1). (Doc. 342.) For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motions. (Docs. 330, 331.)

I. ANALYSIS

A. California Law Governs Procedure on Execution.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(1) states that:

A money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution, unless the court directs otherwise. The procedure on execution-and in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of judgment or execution-must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the extent it applies.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1).

This Court is located in California. Therefore, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(1) mandates that the procedure on execution accord with California procedure. See id. Defendant provides no reasoning or law to support his contention that "Mr. Pierce believes that Arizona law, rather than California law, governs the determination of his Claim of Exemption." (Def.'s Opp'n 3:5-8.)

In sum, California law governs the procedure on execution. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a)(1).

B. Defendant's Claim of Exemption to the Ameriprise Accounts Lacks the Required Sworn Financial Statement.

Under California law, assets held in private retirement plans are fully exempt from execution, both before and after distribution to the judgment debtor. Individual retirement accounts (IRA's), however, are exempt only to the extent "necessary to provide for the support of the judgment debtor when the judgment debtor retires and for the support of the spouse and dependents of the judgment debtor, taking into account all ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.