United States District Court, S.D. California
JOHN T. HARDISTY, Plaintiff,
MELANIE MOORE, et al ., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO DETERMINE LIEN SATISFACTION [ECF NO. 260]
Cynthia Bashant United States District Judge
John T. Hardisty moves for an order determining that a state
lien filed in this action has been satisfied. (ECF No. 260.)
Defendants collectively oppose. (ECF No. 261.) The Court
finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers
submitted and without oral argument. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). For the following
reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's
2011, the Mono County Superior Court entered a $166, 576.32
judgment against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant Harold
M. Moore. (ECF No. 151-1.) Based on this judgment, Mr. Moore
filed a lien in this action under California state law that
attached “to any cause of action of [Plaintiff] . . .
and to [Plaintiff]'s rights to money or property under
any judgment subsequently procured in this action or
proceeding.”(ECF No. 150.) Plaintiff later obtained a
$675, 101.66 judgment in this case against Defendants (ECF
Nos. 209, 237), which Defendants have appealed (ECF No. 240).
On November 30, 2016, Defendants posted a supersedeas bond in
the amount of $843, 877. (ECF Nos. 258, 259.) Subsequently,
on December 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed this motion concerning
the satisfaction of the judgment lien. (ECF No. 260.)
Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(1) provides: “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.” Thus, in this case, California
state law provides the procedure for obtaining a lien on a
judgment. See id.; see also, e.g., Paul
Revere Ins. Grp. v. United States, 500 F.3d 957, 960
(9th Cir. 2007) (noting that “[c]onsistent with Rule
69(a), the government filed a notice of a judgment
lien” under California state law to enforce a $2, 872,
634.89 restitution judgment from a federal criminal
California state law, a judgment lien is available to a
“judgment creditor who has a money judgment against a
judgment debtor who is a party to a pending action.”
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 708.410(a). “To obtain a
lien . . . the judgment creditor shall file a notice of lien
and an abstract or certified copy of the judgment
creditor's money judgment in the pending action.”
Id. § 708.410(b). Once a judgment lien has been
filed, state law also provides the procedure for satisfying
the lien with a judgment obtained by the judgment debtor.
See Id. § 708.470(a); accord Ministry of
Def. & Support for Armed Forces of Islamic Republic of
Iran v. Cubic Def. Sys., Inc., 984 F.Supp.2d 1070, 1096
(S.D. Cal. 2013) (Moskowitz, J.). Specifically, California
Code of Civil Procedure section 708.470(a) provides that
“any party to the action” may file a motion
requesting the court “order that the judgment
debtor's rights to money or property under the judgment
be applied to the satisfaction of the lien.”
there is a lien on Plaintiffs judgment under California state
law for the amount of the Mono County judgment. The Court
construes Plaintiffs motion as seeking to invoke the
procedure set forth in section 708.470(a) for satisfying the
lien because the motion ultimately seeks an order providing
that Plaintiffs “rights to money” under this
Court's “judgment be applied to the satisfaction of
the judgment lien. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §
708.470(a). However, before Plaintiff invoked this
procedure by filing a motion, Defendants posted a supersedeas
bond and stayed Plaintiffs judgment. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 62(d). Because the judgment was stayed before
Plaintiff filed his request, the Court concludes it lacks the
authority to now “order that the judgment debtor's
rights to money or property under the judgment be applied to
the satisfaction of the lien.” See Cal. Civ.
Proc. Code § 708.470(a); see also Fed. R. Civ.
P. 62(d). The Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiffs motion to determine satisfaction of the judgment
lien (ECF No. 260). Once the appeal has been resolved and the
stay imposed by the posting of the supersedeas bond has been
lifted, Plaintiff may renew his request.
 Mr. Moore has since passed away. (ECF
No. 228.) The Court granted a request by Defendant Elaine
Moore-also known as Melanie Moore-to be substituted in place
of Mr. Moore in her capacity as the executrix and party
representative of the estate of Mr. Moore. (ECF No.
 The Court recognizes that Plaintiff
believes he satisfied the judgment lien by tendering a
portion of his judgment to Mr. Moore via letter. As noted,
however, California Code of Civil Procedure section
708.470(a) sets forth the procedure for Plaintiff to
request-by motion-that his “rights to money . . . under
the judgment” be applied to satisfy the judgment lien.
Further, although a party may tender money or performance to
satisfy an obligation, “[a] valid tender of performance
must be of the full debt, in good faith, unconditional, and
with the ability to perform.” Intengan v. BAC Home
Loans Servicing LP,214 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1053 (2013).
At the time Plaintiff attempted to tender his judgment to
satisfy his obligation to Mr. Moore, the judgment was
automatically stayed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
62(a)(1). Thus, even assuming Plaintiff could tender his
right to money ...