What is an Order to Appear for Examination of Judgment Debtor (ORAP)?

Useful Rulings on Order to Appear for Examination of Judgment Debtor (ORAP)

Recent Rulings on Order to Appear for Examination of Judgment Debtor (ORAP)

EDWIN MINASSIAN VS MICHAEL PANOSIAN, ET AL

(1) MOTION TO STAY JUDGMENT DEBTOR EXAMINATION (2) MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT JUDGMENT DEBTOR EXAMINATION Date: 11/20/20 (8:30 AM) Case: Edwin Minassian v. Michael Panosian et al. (EC065533) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Edwin Minassian’s Motion to Stay Judgment Debtor Examination is DENIED. Defendants Michael Panosian and Toughbuilt Industries, Inc.’s Motion for Attorney Fees for Plaintiff’s Failure to Attend Judgment Debtor Examination is GRANTED. I.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MUNOZ VS SAN DIEGO BEST WINDOW COMPANY INC

Plaintiff states a judgment debtor examination has been attempted without success. It is true that such hearings have not gone forward in recent months due to the risks associated with in-person hearings during a pandemic. However, such hearings are once again being set by the court, starting in January 2021. Plaintiff is directed forthwith to set up a judgment debtor examination in January.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MUNOZ VS SAN DIEGO BEST WINDOW COMPANY INC

Plaintiff states a judgment debtor examination has been attempted without success. It is true that such hearings have not gone forward in recent months due to the risks associated with in-person hearings during a pandemic. However, such hearings are once again being set by the court, starting in January 2021. Plaintiff is directed forthwith to set up a judgment debtor examination in January.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

AKF INC VS FUFU'S GRILL LLC

The subpoena at issue was issued for production of documents at the attorney’s office and not in court as part of the judgment debtor examination of defendant Mark Berry. (Motion, Exh. 1.) As such, the third- party subpoena is not tethered to any examination proceeding.

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The amount of time is also explained by the time Judgment Assignee’s counsel spent on the judgment debtor examination, review of the multiple appeals filed, review, preparation for the two hearings on Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, review and opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration (Ibid.) Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Guy Hart’s Motion to Tax Costs is DENIED. Judgment Assignee is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HR LINK, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS ECO-MODITY LLC D/B/A BLUE MARBLE MATERIALS, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

On July 14, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for a continuance regarding the judgment debtor examination of Tchad C. Robinson and continued the hearing to October 20, 2020. On July 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice re: continuance of judgment debtor examination and attached a proof of service by overnight delivery to Judgment Debtor Tchad C. Robinson. ANALYSIS: I.

  • Hearing

SHERWIN WILLIAMS V. CARRERO

Judgment Debtor Examination. TENTATIVE RULING # 3: THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE DEBTOR IS REQUIRED AT 8:30 A.M., FRIDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2020 IN DEPARTMENT NINE, PROVIDED PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE ORDER TO APPEAR FOR EXAMINATION IS FILED PRIOR TO THE HEARING SHOWING THAT PERSONAL SERVICE ON THE DEBTOR WAS EFFECTED NO LATER THAN TEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE (CCP, § 708.110(d)). IF THE APPROPRIATE PROOF OF SERVICE IS NOT FILED, NO EXAMINATION WILL TAKE PLACE.

  • Hearing

LUIS RODRIGUEZ VS. SECRET RECIPES, INC.

Merits of Motion: Entitlement to Post-Judgment Attorney’s Fees Plaintiff argues that he incurred post-judgment expenses in connection with his motions to compel Defendant’s further responses to post-judgment SROG and RPD, to defend against Defendant’s motions to vacate the judgment, and to conduct the judgment debtor examination of Hovik Grigorian and Andreh Koygani (each 50% shareholders of Defendant).

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On December 12, 2019, Defendant again failed to appear at the judgment debtor examination and the Court issued the bench warrant. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion on January 28, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SHOREWISE VS. RUNERA

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR ORDER EXTENDING ORAP LIEN FILED BY SHOREWISE CONSULTING LLC * TENTATIVE RULING: * Granted.

  • Hearing

JEREMY VOLGER VS CYBERCITY 3D, INC.,

Plaintiff provided the following facts: Plaintiff conducted a judgment debtor examination of the CEO of judgment debtor, Kevin DeVito (“DeVito”). According to DeVito, CyberCity sold its assets, their 3D modeling files, and a software license to EdgyGeo for $325,000, but, only a fraction of this amount has been paid to date. (Decl., Nathan Dooley, Ex. D, 13:17-27.). EdgyGeo is a software company that manages data sources using a 3D visualization information cloud-based software. (Id. at p. 14:10-13.)

  • Hearing

CALABASAS PARK ESTATES OWNERS ASSO. VS. S.B.R.S. INC.

Safaie claims Plaintiff had no problem finding him when they served the subpoena for the judgment debtor examination, but he does not dispute that Mr. Erami was the agent for service of process in 2018. Moreover, Defendant has failed to attach a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 473.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SERENA YOUNG VS PHILIP E HILL M.D ET AL

ORAP The parties are reminded that there is an Application for Order for Appearance and Examination on calendar concurrently with the hearing on this motion. DATED: September 29, 2020 _____________________________________ MARK C. KIM Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

EL TORO EXPORT LLC VS LYERLY

A judgment debtor examination was sought and ordered, but had to come off calendar due to the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing court closure. See ROA 32-36; see also Ayala v. Superior Court (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 387 (recounting background facts giving rise to the emergency orders as the result of the pandemic). Presently, plaintiff/judgment creditor seeks an order garnishing the wages of judgment debtor Adam Lyerly's spouse, Annabel.* ROA 38-44. No opposition has been filed.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LUIS RODRIGUEZ VS. SECRET RECIPES, INC.

Merits of Motion: Entitlement to Post-Judgment Attorney’s Fees Plaintiff argues that he incurred post-judgment expenses in connection with his motions to compel Defendant’s further responses to post-judgment SROG and RPD, to defend against Defendant’s motions to vacate the judgment, and to conduct the judgment debtor examination of Hovik Grigorian and Andreh Koygani (each 50% shareholders of Defendant).

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LAKELAND WEST CAPITAL VIII, LLC VS WILLIAM F. LASKY

Lasky in opposition argues that there was some confusion in his judgment debtor examination with respect to his income from a senior care development project being only $5,000 a month, and that he has cooperated with Nevada counsel in producing check stubs showing his $5,000 per week payment from MRC, as well as bank account statements, so he is not hiding his financial condition. [Lasky Decl. ¶ 11].

  • Hearing

SOCAL LIEN SOLUTIONS, LLC VS CHARLENE MONCRIEF, ET AL.

Defendants move for sanctions against Plaintiff for failure to appear at the September 10, 2019 judgment debtor examination under Code of Civil Procedure section 708.170, which provides: (a) If an order requiring a person to appear for an examination was served by a sheriff, marshal, a person specially appointed by the court in the order, or a registered process server, and the person fails to appear: . . .

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EMCOR BUILDING SERVICES VS CHULA HOLDING, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

The motion for protective order quashing the ORAP is granted. An ORAP is improper without judgment having been entered. The court finds that defendant was not served with the summons and complaint. The orders of default and judgment are VOID and they are stricken. CLERK OF THE COURT TO GIVE NOTICE. IT IS SO ORDERED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

ELITE ACCEPTANCE CORP. V. RIGHETTI

Return on Bench Warrant Re: Judgment Debtor Examination. The judgment debtor failed to appear at the hearing on June 16, 2020 and a bench warrant was issued. The bench warrant was served on July 1, 2020 and he was cited to appear at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, September 18, 2020 in Department Nine. TENTATIVE RULING # 2: THE APPEARANCE OF THE DEBTOR IS REQUIRED AT 8:30 A.M., FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2020 IN DEPARTMENT NINE. NOTE: NO PERSONAL APPEARANCES WILL BE ALLOWED DUE TO THE ONGOING PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS.

  • Hearing

AGILECAP, LLC VS AI LING LEE, ET AL.

Plaintiff learned, during Lee’s subsequent judgment debtor examination, that (1) Jubilee closed its offices and diverted its entire book of business to LLT, (2) all of Jubilee’s policies were replaced and being serviced by her former Jubilee co-worker, Feng Ling aka Ling Feng aka Vicky Ling (“Ling”), but under LLT so as to avoid the assignment of commissions as agreed under the Loan and that (3) Jubilee closed its bank accounts and/or diverted all of its assets to LLT without consideration.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WILLIAM GLAD VS HONG WASH LLC ET AL

The parties are reminded that there is an ORAP and an OSC re: dismissal after settlement on calendar today concurrently with the hearing on the two motions, above.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

YONG PYO HONG VS HENRY M LEE ET AL

Plaintiff points to the March 13, 2015 minute order in Case BC390377 as evidence that Defendants failed to appear at the judgment debtor examination of Moses Lee. Hong Decl. Ex. I. The record in Case BC390377 demonstrates Plaintiff filed applications for an order for appearance and examination multiple times during 2016 and that the court set additional hearings to examine the judgment debtors.

  • Hearing

JOSEPH RUIGOMEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS THOMAS V. GIRARDI, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Moreover, the judgment debtor examination of Girardi is currently set for September 23, 2020. Therefore, Plaintiffs have not provided sufficient evidence to support their request for a turnover order. Issue No.2: Appointment of a Receiver Plaintiffs assert that a receiver is necessary to manage G&K and to satisfy a portion of the judgment.

  • Hearing

PRICE V. REDDIN

Judgment Debtor Examination. TENTATIVE RULING # 1: THE APPEARANCE OF THE DEBTOR IS REQUIRED AT 8:30 A.M., FRIDAY, AUGUST 28, 2020 IN DEPARTMENT NINE. NOTE: NO PERSONAL APPEARANCES WILL BE ALLOWED DUE TO THE ONGOING PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS. APPEARANCES VIA ZOOM ARE REQUIRED AND MEETING INFORMATION WILL BE PROVIDED. PARTIES TO CONTACT THE COURT IMMEDIATELY AT 530-621-5867 TO PROVIDE THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION IN ORDER FOR THE COURT TO SEND ZOOM INVITES TO ATTENDEES.

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On March 21, 2018, the Court granted Judgment Debtor’s ex parte application to continue the judgment debtor examination to May 2, 2018. Judgment Creditor took the initial motion to compel discovery off calendar and filed a second motion on April 24, 2018. On May 2, 2018, over Judgment Creditor’s objection, the Court continued the Appearance and Examination on Judgment Debtor’s oral motion to June 11, 2018 to allow Judgment Debtor’s motion to quash to be heard.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.