California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division
FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION [*]
from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. No.
BC502938 Edward B. Moreton, Judge. Affirmed.
Hollingsworth for Plaintiff and Appellant.
appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
New Start Real Estate Investment LLC appeals from three
postjudgment orders thwarting its attempts to collect on a
judgment against defendant Jack Huang, also known as Ming
Shan Huang, and imposing sanctions against it. These rulings
were based on the trial court's conclusion there was no
enforceable judgment, because the court had granted
defendant's motion for a new trial of punitive damages.
Plaintiff contends the part of the judgment awarding
compensatory damages was enforceable despite the order
granting a new trial of punitive damages. We affirm.
awarded plaintiff $1, 620, 000 in compensatory damages, and
$280, 000 in punitive damages in its action against defendant
(and others not relevant to this appeal), and judgment was
entered in plaintiff's favor on January 3, 2018. After
entry of judgment, defendant successfully moved for a new
trial of punitive damages. The court granted defendant's
motion “subject to denial if Plaintiff accepts a
reduction to $10, 000.”
did not accept the court's proposed reduction of punitive
damages to $10, 000, and therefore punitive damages were to
be retried. No date for retrial was set, however, because
plaintiff appealed the order granting a new
the court's ruling on the new trial motion, plaintiff
sought to enforce the judgment. On March 14, 2018, plaintiff
obtained a writ of execution from the clerk of the superior
court for the entire judgment (including the punitive damages
award). In May 2018, plaintiff also served subpoenas for
production of business records upon several banks at which
defendant held accounts. Additionally, plaintiff sent levy
instructions to Bank of America, and accounts held by
defendant's wife and son were levied. In June 2018,
plaintiff sought orders requiring defendant and others to
appear for judgment debtor examinations.
vigorously opposed plaintiff's efforts to enforce the
judgment. Defendant filed claims of exemption with the
sheriff's department, supported by declarations from his
wife and son testifying that the money in the levied accounts
belonged only to them.
also objected to the subpoenas for production of business
records, and demanded plaintiff withdraw them. In June 2018,
defendant filed a motion to quash the subpoenas, arguing that
the order granting the new trial motion had vacated the
judgment. Defendant sought sanctions against plaintiff for
its efforts to enforce the judgment. A hearing on the motion
was calendared for September 20, 2018.
August 7, 2018, defendant filed a motion to quash the writ of
execution, again seeking sanctions against plaintiff.
opposed the claims of exemption, and the claims were set for
hearing on August 23, 2018. In his reply to plaintiff's
opposition, defendant again requested sanctions for
plaintiff's repeated efforts to enforce ...