Preview
eo wm nN A MH FF BW NY
YN N NY N NN we ww ms
RBNRRREBRE SE BRERVA DEBRA S
DAVID J. COOK, ESQ. SBN 060859 ELECTRONICALLY
COOK COLLECTION ATTORNEYS FILED
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION Superior Court of California,
165 Fell Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 County of San Francisco
P.O. Box 270, San Francisco, CA 94104-0270 03/12/2019
Telephone: (415) 989-4730 Clerk of the Court
Facsimile: (415) 989-0491 BY:BOWMAN eputy clork
cook@cookcollectionattorneys.com
Our File No, 58,002
Attorneys for Plaintiffs ROBBIE LEE GILLELAND
and REBECCA GILLELAND (“Judgment Creditors”)
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
ROBBIE LEE GILLELAND CASE NO. CPF 19 516563
and REBECCA GILLELAND, SECOND AND SUPPLMENTAL
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
Plaintiffs, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR:
vs. 1, ENTRY OF ORDER
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT BY ADDING
SHENZHEN FEST TECHNOLOGY TO THE NAME OF THE DEBTOR ITS
co., LTD, LEGAL STATUS AS REQUIRED BY C.C..P.
SECTION 699.520©;
Defendant. 2. ENTRY OF ORDER
AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF
EXECUTION TO ENFORCE THE
JUDGMENT, NOTWITHSTANDING LACK
OF SERVICE UNDER C.C.P. SECTION
1710.30, UNDER THE AUSPICES OF C.C.
SECTION 1710.45(b)(2) and (d)
Date of Hearing: March 12, 2019
Time of Hearing: 11:00 a.m.
Department: 302
Name of Judge: Honorable Ethan P. Schulman
tt eee
1
SECOND AND SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR:
1 ENTRY OF ORDER MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT BY ADDING TO THE NAME OF THE
DEBTOR ITS LEGAL STATUS AS REQUIRED BY C.C..P. SECTION 699.5200;
2. ENTRY OF ORDER AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF EXECUTION TO ENFORCE
THE JUDGMENT, NOTWITHSTANDING LACK OF SERVICE UNDER C.C.P. SECTION 1710.30, UNDER THE
AUSPICES OF C.C. SECTION 1710.45(b)(2) and (d)o Om YN DW
10
u
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
L UNDER FULL FAITH AND CREDIT, THE CALIFORNIA COURT MUST
RECOGNIZE THE FINAL JUDGMENT FROM GEORGIA.
Plaintiffs brought their case in Georgia, in which the court rendered a final, non judgment.
Plaintiffs have sought to domesticate this judgment in the courts of the State of California
under C.C.P. Section 1710.10 as follows:
As used in this chapter:
(a) “Judgment creditor” means the person or persons who can bring an action to enforce a
sister state judgment.
(b) “Judgment debtor” means the person or persons against whom an action to enforce a
sister state judgment can be brought.
© “Sister state judgment” means that part of any judgment, decree, or order of a court ofa
state of the United States, other than California, which requires the payment of money, but
does not include a support order as defined in Section 155 of the Family Code.
I. RIGHT TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT
As state in Conseco Mktg., LLC v. IFA & Ins. Servs., Inc., 221 Cal. App. 4th 831, 837, 164
Cal. Rptr. 3d 788, 792 (2013 The plaintiffs are entitled to enforce their judgment as follows:
“Article IV, section 1 of the United States Constitution provides that ‘[fJull Faith and
Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of
every other State.” ‘It has long been the law that “the judgment of a state court should have
the same credit, validity, and effect in every other court in the United States, which it had
in the state where it was pronounced.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.] ‘Therefore, under California
law, the judgment of a sister state must be given full faith and credit if that sister state had
jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, and all interested parties were given
reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Liquidator of
Integrity Ins. Co. v. Hendrix (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 971, 975, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 240
(Liquidator ).)
b. Application for Enforcement of Sister State Judgment
“{A] sister state judgment is not, by itself, enforceable in California. It is only after the
sister state judgment has been made a California judgment that any form of execution or
saareement can be had.” (Epps v. Russell (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 201, 204, 133 Cal.Rptr.
Il. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TAKE PRECEDENCE WHETHER THE CASE COULD
ORIGINALLY BEEN BROUGHT IN THE COURTS OF CALIFORNIA
2
SECOND AND SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR: .
lL ENTRY OF ORDER MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT BY ADDING TO THE NAME OF THE
DEBTOR ITS LEGAL STATUS AS REQUIRED BY C.C..P. SECTION 699.5200;
2. ENTRY OF ORDER AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF EXECUTION TO ENFORCE
THE JUDGMENT, NOTWITHSTANDING LACK OF SERVICE UNDER C.C.P. SECTION 1710.30, UNDER THE
AUSPICES OF C.C. SECTION 1710.45(b)(2) and (d)wv
oO on a
10
“a
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
* 23
24
25
26
27
28
Full Faith and Credit takes precedence over “under the law or policy of California”s under
Traci & Marx Co. v. Legal Options, Inc., 126 Cal. App. 4th 155, 158, 23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 685, 687
(2005) as follows:
“We begin our analysis with the observation that “California must, regardless of policy
objections, recognize the judgment of another state as res judicata, and this is so even
though the action or proceeding which resulted in the judgment could not have been
brought under the law or policy of California.” (Silbrico Corp. v. Raanan (1985) 170
Cal.App.3d 202, 207, 216 Cal.Rptr. 201, quoting World Wide Imports, Inc. v. Bartel (1983)
145 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1011, 193 Cal.Rptr. 830.)
In Silbrico Corp. v. Raanan, 170 Cal. App. 3d 202, 207-08, 216 Cal. Rptr. 201, 204 (Ct. App.
1985) the court stated as follows: :
“In World Wide Imports, Inc. y. Bartel, supra, 145 Cal.App.3d 1006, 193 Cal.Rptr. 830,
the defendants conceded that none of the above enumerated defenses were available to
them and that under traditional legal principles they were entitled to no relief. They
insisted, however, that Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co. (1980) 448 U.S. 261, 100
S.Ct. 2647, 65 L.Ed.2d 757, had changed the existing law and that under Thomas, denial of
the enforcement of a foreign judgment is permissible if the latter violates a fundamental
public policy of the enforcing state.
The World Wide Imports' Court rejected this argument, pointing out that Thomas did not
change the basic rule that “California must, regardless of policy objections, recognize the
judgment of another state as res judicata, and this is so even though the action or
proceeding which resulted in the judgment could not have been brought under the law or
policy of California.” (World Wide Imports, Inc. v. Bartel, supra, 145 Cal.App.3d at p.
1011, 193 Cal.Rptr. 830.)
The court noted (ibid. ) that California's rule is in harmony with Restatement Second of
Conflict of Laws, section 117, which states: “A valid judgment rendered in one State of the
United States will be recognized and enforced in a sister State even though the strong
public policy of the latter State would have precluded recovery in its courts on the original
claim.” (Emphasis added; see also Tyus v. Tyus (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 789, 793, 206
Cal.Rptr. 817.)”
i
Mt
i
1
3
SECOND AND SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR:
1 ENTRY OF ORDER MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT BY ADDING TO THE NAME OF THE
DEBTOR ITS LEGAL STATUS AS REQUIRED BY C.C..P. SECTION 699.5200;
2. ENTRY OF ORDER AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF EXECUTION TO ENFORCE
THE JUDGMENT, NOTWITHSTANDING LACK OF SERVICE UNDER C.C.P. SECTION 1710.30, UNDER THE
AUSPICES OF C.C. SECTION 1710.45(b)(2) and (d)w
Co mY DH &
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
JW
18
»19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IV. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs seek to enforce this judgment wherein the courts of thé State of Califqrnia as
authorized under Full Faith and Credit.
a
DATED: March 12, 2019 COOK GOLLECTION A 786
REBECCA GILLELAND
4
SECOND AND SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR:
1 ENTRY OF ORDER MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT BY ADDING TO THE NAME OF THE
DEBTOR ITS LEGAL STATUS AS REQUIRED BY C.C..P. SECTION 699.5206;
2. ENTRY OF ORDER AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF EXECUTION TO ENFORCE
THE JUDGMENT, NOTWITHSTANDING LACK OF SERVICE UNDER C.C.P. SECTION 1710.30, UNDER THE
AUSPICES OF C.C. SECTION 1710.45(b)(2) and (d)
Preview
eo wm nN A MH FF BW NY YN N NY N NN we ww ms RBNRRREBRE SE BRERVA DEBRA S DAVID J. COOK, ESQ. SBN 060859 ELECTRONICALLY COOK COLLECTION ATTORNEYS FILED A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION Superior Court of California, 165 Fell Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 County of San Francisco P.O. Box 270, San Francisco, CA 94104-0270 03/12/2019 Telephone: (415) 989-4730 Clerk of the Court Facsimile: (415) 989-0491 BY:BOWMAN eputy clork cook@cookcollectionattorneys.com Our File No, 58,002 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ROBBIE LEE GILLELAND and REBECCA GILLELAND (“Judgment Creditors”) SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION ROBBIE LEE GILLELAND CASE NO. CPF 19 516563 and REBECCA GILLELAND, SECOND AND SUPPLMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Plaintiffs, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR: vs. 1, ENTRY OF ORDER MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT BY ADDING SHENZHEN FEST TECHNOLOGY TO THE NAME OF THE DEBTOR ITS co., LTD, LEGAL STATUS AS REQUIRED BY C.C..P. SECTION 699.520©; Defendant. 2. ENTRY OF ORDER AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF EXECUTION TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT, NOTWITHSTANDING LACK OF SERVICE UNDER C.C.P. SECTION 1710.30, UNDER THE AUSPICES OF C.C. SECTION 1710.45(b)(2) and (d) Date of Hearing: March 12, 2019 Time of Hearing: 11:00 a.m. Department: 302 Name of Judge: Honorable Ethan P. Schulman tt eee 1 SECOND AND SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR: 1 ENTRY OF ORDER MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT BY ADDING TO THE NAME OF THE DEBTOR ITS LEGAL STATUS AS REQUIRED BY C.C..P. SECTION 699.5200; 2. ENTRY OF ORDER AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF EXECUTION TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT, NOTWITHSTANDING LACK OF SERVICE UNDER C.C.P. SECTION 1710.30, UNDER THE AUSPICES OF C.C. SECTION 1710.45(b)(2) and (d)o Om YN DW 10 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L UNDER FULL FAITH AND CREDIT, THE CALIFORNIA COURT MUST RECOGNIZE THE FINAL JUDGMENT FROM GEORGIA. Plaintiffs brought their case in Georgia, in which the court rendered a final, non judgment. Plaintiffs have sought to domesticate this judgment in the courts of the State of California under C.C.P. Section 1710.10 as follows: As used in this chapter: (a) “Judgment creditor” means the person or persons who can bring an action to enforce a sister state judgment. (b) “Judgment debtor” means the person or persons against whom an action to enforce a sister state judgment can be brought. © “Sister state judgment” means that part of any judgment, decree, or order of a court ofa state of the United States, other than California, which requires the payment of money, but does not include a support order as defined in Section 155 of the Family Code. I. RIGHT TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT As state in Conseco Mktg., LLC v. IFA & Ins. Servs., Inc., 221 Cal. App. 4th 831, 837, 164 Cal. Rptr. 3d 788, 792 (2013 The plaintiffs are entitled to enforce their judgment as follows: “Article IV, section 1 of the United States Constitution provides that ‘[fJull Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” ‘It has long been the law that “the judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity, and effect in every other court in the United States, which it had in the state where it was pronounced.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.] ‘Therefore, under California law, the judgment of a sister state must be given full faith and credit if that sister state had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, and all interested parties were given reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Liquidator of Integrity Ins. Co. v. Hendrix (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 971, 975, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 240 (Liquidator ).) b. Application for Enforcement of Sister State Judgment “{A] sister state judgment is not, by itself, enforceable in California. It is only after the sister state judgment has been made a California judgment that any form of execution or saareement can be had.” (Epps v. Russell (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 201, 204, 133 Cal.Rptr. Il. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TAKE PRECEDENCE WHETHER THE CASE COULD ORIGINALLY BEEN BROUGHT IN THE COURTS OF CALIFORNIA 2 SECOND AND SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR: . lL ENTRY OF ORDER MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT BY ADDING TO THE NAME OF THE DEBTOR ITS LEGAL STATUS AS REQUIRED BY C.C..P. SECTION 699.5200; 2. ENTRY OF ORDER AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF EXECUTION TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT, NOTWITHSTANDING LACK OF SERVICE UNDER C.C.P. SECTION 1710.30, UNDER THE AUSPICES OF C.C. SECTION 1710.45(b)(2) and (d)wv oO on a 10 “a 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 * 23 24 25 26 27 28 Full Faith and Credit takes precedence over “under the law or policy of California”s under Traci & Marx Co. v. Legal Options, Inc., 126 Cal. App. 4th 155, 158, 23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 685, 687 (2005) as follows: “We begin our analysis with the observation that “California must, regardless of policy objections, recognize the judgment of another state as res judicata, and this is so even though the action or proceeding which resulted in the judgment could not have been brought under the law or policy of California.” (Silbrico Corp. v. Raanan (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 202, 207, 216 Cal.Rptr. 201, quoting World Wide Imports, Inc. v. Bartel (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1011, 193 Cal.Rptr. 830.) In Silbrico Corp. v. Raanan, 170 Cal. App. 3d 202, 207-08, 216 Cal. Rptr. 201, 204 (Ct. App. 1985) the court stated as follows: : “In World Wide Imports, Inc. y. Bartel, supra, 145 Cal.App.3d 1006, 193 Cal.Rptr. 830, the defendants conceded that none of the above enumerated defenses were available to them and that under traditional legal principles they were entitled to no relief. They insisted, however, that Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co. (1980) 448 U.S. 261, 100 S.Ct. 2647, 65 L.Ed.2d 757, had changed the existing law and that under Thomas, denial of the enforcement of a foreign judgment is permissible if the latter violates a fundamental public policy of the enforcing state. The World Wide Imports' Court rejected this argument, pointing out that Thomas did not change the basic rule that “California must, regardless of policy objections, recognize the judgment of another state as res judicata, and this is so even though the action or proceeding which resulted in the judgment could not have been brought under the law or policy of California.” (World Wide Imports, Inc. v. Bartel, supra, 145 Cal.App.3d at p. 1011, 193 Cal.Rptr. 830.) The court noted (ibid. ) that California's rule is in harmony with Restatement Second of Conflict of Laws, section 117, which states: “A valid judgment rendered in one State of the United States will be recognized and enforced in a sister State even though the strong public policy of the latter State would have precluded recovery in its courts on the original claim.” (Emphasis added; see also Tyus v. Tyus (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 789, 793, 206 Cal.Rptr. 817.)” i Mt i 1 3 SECOND AND SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR: 1 ENTRY OF ORDER MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT BY ADDING TO THE NAME OF THE DEBTOR ITS LEGAL STATUS AS REQUIRED BY C.C..P. SECTION 699.5200; 2. ENTRY OF ORDER AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF EXECUTION TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT, NOTWITHSTANDING LACK OF SERVICE UNDER C.C.P. SECTION 1710.30, UNDER THE AUSPICES OF C.C. SECTION 1710.45(b)(2) and (d)w Co mY DH & 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 JW 18 »19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IV. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs seek to enforce this judgment wherein the courts of thé State of Califqrnia as authorized under Full Faith and Credit. a DATED: March 12, 2019 COOK GOLLECTION A 786 REBECCA GILLELAND 4 SECOND AND SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR: 1 ENTRY OF ORDER MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT BY ADDING TO THE NAME OF THE DEBTOR ITS LEGAL STATUS AS REQUIRED BY C.C..P. SECTION 699.5206; 2. ENTRY OF ORDER AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF EXECUTION TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT, NOTWITHSTANDING LACK OF SERVICE UNDER C.C.P. SECTION 1710.30, UNDER THE AUSPICES OF C.C. SECTION 1710.45(b)(2) and (d)