Motion-Secondary: INSTANT FINANCING, INC. VS WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL, LLC

• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 09/23/2020 11:50 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by J. Lara,Deputy Clerk




                      1 ROBERT GENTINO, SB# 93808
                        LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT GENTINO
                      2 3151 Cahuenga Boulevard W, Suite 201
                        Los Angeles, California 90068
                      3 818.509.7272

                      4

                      5 Attorney for Petitioner Instant Financing, Inc.
                        And Judgment Creditor Robert Gentino
                      6

                      7

                      8                                  SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                      9                                                         COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

                    10

                    11      INSTANT FINANCING, INC.              )                                      #19STCP03388
                                                                 )                                      Hon. Raymond M. Hammock – Dept. 47
                    12                  Petitioner               )
                                  v.                             )                                      OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO:
                    13                                           )                                      1. RECALL AND QUASH WRIT OF
                            WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL,         )                                      EXECUTION
                    14      LLC                                  )                                      2. STRIKE/TAX ACCRUED INTEREST
                                                                 )                                      FROM MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
                    15                  Respondent.              )
                            ____________________________________ )                                      October 6, 2020
                    16                                                                                  8:30 a.m.
                                                                                                        Dept. 47
                    17

                    18                 WCC bases these two motions on its claim that it is required to perform backup withholding
                    19 until a W-9 or TIN is given.” (Motion to recall, 4:23-24). This claim fails for two reasons:

                    20

                    21 I.              BACKUP WITHHOLDING NOT REQUIRED FOR PAYMENT OF JUDGMENT,
                    22 RATHER THAN COMPENSATION FOR A BENEFIT TO WCC

                    23                 I.R.S. Regulations require backup withholding when a person/entity voluntarily agrees to pay
                    24 wages to another, not payment on a Judgment and not payment on the cost amount included in the

                    25 Judgment. WCC never agreed to pay Mr. Gentino’s fees, nor the non-wage costs included in the

                    26 $691,448.44 Judgment advanced by Mr. Gentino. Thus, the I.R.S. require backup withholding for

                    27 payment to an attorney as compensation for legal services, but not for voluntary payment on a

                    28 Judgment to avoid judgment enforcement. Otherwise, a judgment debtor like WCC would be
                                                                              -1-
                                             OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO (1) RECALL WRIT (2) STRIKE ACCRUED INTEREST