United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT ORDER, ORDER
RESTRAINING JUDGMENT DEBTOR, AND TURNOVER ORDER Re: Dkt. Nos.
22 & 27
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge
Smaato, Inc., moves to enforce its default judgment against
Mobilewalla, Inc. Plaintiff seeks: (1) an order pursuant to
California Civil Procedure Code § 708.510 instructing
Mobilewalla to assign its interest in any and all accounts
receivable and rights to payment from any and all clients,
customers, or others which owe it money to the extent
necessary to pay Smaato's judgment against Mobilewalla in
full; 2) an order restraining Mobilewalla and any servant,
agent, employee, officer, director, shareholder or attorney
for Mobilewalla, and any person(s) in active concert and
participating with it, from encumbering, assigning, disposing
or spending said accounts receivable, and all rights to
payment thereunder; and 3) an order pursuant to California
Civil Procedure Code § 699.040(e) compelling Mobilewalla
to transfer to the U.S. Marshal all checks, cash, notes,
instruments, deposits, deposit accounts, drafts, and accounts
receivable ledgers or journals pertaining to the businesses
identified herein. (Dkt. No. 22.)
has not responded to Plaintiff's motion. Because the
Court had concerns regarding the evidentiary support in
Plaintiff's motion, the Court requested additional
briefing which has been submitted. (Dkt. No. 27.) Having
considered Plaintiff's submissions and the relevant legal
authority, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for an
assignment order, an order restraining the judgment debtor,
and a turnover order.
enforcement proceedings in this federal court must comply
with California law. Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 95
F.3d 848, 851 (9th Cir. 1996)). The California Code of Civil
Procedure “provides procedures for the assignment of
assets, issuance of restraining orders, and issuance of
turnover orders.” UMG Recordings, Inc. v. BCD Music
Grp., Inc., No. CV 07-05808, 2009 WL 2213678, at *1
(C.D. Cal. July 9, 2009).
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 708.510(a), a judgment creditor
may obtain an assignment order against a judgment debtor as
upon application of the judgment creditor on noticed motion,
the court may order the judgment debtor to assign to the
judgment creditor ... all or part of a r1ight to payment due
or to become due, whether or not the right is conditioned on
future developments, including but not limited to the
following types of payments:
(1) Wages due from the federal government that are not
subject to withholding under an earnings withholding order.
(5) Payments due from a patent or copyright.
(6) Insurance policy loan value.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 708.510(a). In determining
whether to issue an assignment order a court should consider
“[p]ayments the judgment debtor is required to make or
that are deducted in satisfaction of other judgments or
garnishments, ” “[t]he amount remaining due on
the money judgment, ” and “the amount being or to
be received in satisfaction of the right to payment that may
be assigned.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 708.510(c).
Further, “[a] right to payment may be assigned pursuant
to this article only to the extent necessary to satisfy the
money judgment.” Id.
Plaintiff's initial submission identified 27
“sources that are obligated to make payments to
Mobilewalla including Citicorp, Starbucks Corporation,
Pepisco, Inc., Proctor & Gamble Co., Donald J. Trump for
President, Inc., Oracle Corporation, Dell Inc., and Ikea
Systems among others. (Dkt. No. 22 at 4:10-20.) Plaintiff
asked the Court to order an assignment of the right to
payment sufficient to satisfy its $262, 735.55 judgment.
However, Plaintiff did not identify the basis for its
assertion that any of these 27 sources are required to pay
Mobilewalla, and instead, it just asserted that the sources
“are obligated to make payments to Mobilewalla.”
The Court thus ordered Plaintiff to submit supplemental
briefing providing evidentiary support for its contention
that these sources owe Mobilewalla funds sufficient to
satisfy the judgment here. (Dkt. No. 26.)
supplemental submission provides the requisite evidentiary
support. See UMG Recordings, Inc. v. BCD Music Grp.,
Inc., No. 07-05808, 2009 WL 2213678, at *3 (C.D. Cal.
July 9, 2009) (granting assignment remedy where the plaintiff
identified why it believed the listed sources would owe money
to the debtor). Plaintiff has submitted a declaration which
attests that according to Mobilewalla's own website, the
following companies are its customers:
Nokia USA Inc.
GDM Services, Inc. dba Fiksu DSP
Mediaedge Worldwide Ltd dba MEC
Aptus Health, Inc. dba Tomorrow Networks
M Saatchi LA Inc.
Unilever United States, Inc.
The Burt's Bees Product Company
Mazda Motor of North America, Inc.
Tyson Foods, Inc. dba Hillshire Farm
Expedia, Inc. dba hotels.com
FCA U.S. LLC dba Chrysler
(Dkt. No. 27 ¶ 7; Dkt. No. 27-1 at 2-5.) Plaintiff also
attaches copies of press releases and articles reflecting
partnerships announced between Mobilewalla and Oracle,
MediaMath, Adsquare, Eyeota, and Gravy Analytics over the
last several months. (Dkt. No. 27-1 at 7-45.) Plaintiff
contends that the these clients, customers, and partners of
Mobilewalla have or will have accounts receivable due to
Mobilewlla. This information provides sufficient
concreteness to assure the Court that pursuant to Section
708.510(a) there are “payment[s] due or to become
due” from these sources to Mobilewalla which the Court
can assign to ...