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.

Newstart Real Estate Investment LLC v. Huang

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division

July 3, 2019

NEWSTART REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
JACK HUANG, Defendant and Respondent.

         CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION [*]

          APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. No. BC502938 Edward B. Moreton, Judge. Affirmed.

          Gary Hollingsworth for Plaintiff and Appellant.

         No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

          GRIMES, J.

         Plaintiff 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.

         BACKGROUND

         A jury 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.”

         Plaintiff 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 trial.[1]

         After 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.

         Defendant 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.

         Defendant 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.

         On August 7, 2018, defendant filed a motion to quash the writ of execution, again seeking sanctions against plaintiff.

         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 ...


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.