Preview
A
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Dec-09-2015 3:59 pm
Case Number: CPF-13-513216
Filing Date: Dec-09-2015 3:52
Filed by: ROSIE NOGUERA
Juke Box: 001 Image: 05189473
ORDER
ROBERT LALANNE VS. MICHELE ARMANINO et al
001005189473
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.F
Superior Court of California
‘County of San Francisco
DEC 0.9 2015
CLERK OF THE COURT
BY:
eputy Clerk
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT
ROBERT LALANNE, No. CPF-13-513216
we ORDER (1) GRANTING
Petitioner, RESPONDENTS' MOTION TO
vs OFFSET JUDGMENTS AND TO
. RECALL AND QUASH THE WRIT OF
EXECUTION; AND (2) DENYING
MICHELE ARMANINO and LALANNE TIONG Se MOON TO
, RESCIND ORDER AND LIFT STAY OF
ENFORCEMENT ENTERED
Respondents. JANUARY 3, 2014
On November 12, 2015, Petitioner's Motion to Rescind order and Lift Stay of
Enforcement Entered January 3, 2014 and Respondents’ Motion (1) to Compel Compliance
with Demand for Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment or, In the Alternative, (2) to
Offset Judgments, and (3) to Recall and Quash Writ of Execution came on for hearing before
the Honorable Ernest H. Goldsmith. Upon considering the written submissions, admissible
evidence, and arguments of counsel, the court rules as follows:
The court GRANTS respondent's motion to offset judgments and to recall and quash
the writ of execution. The court denies without prejudice respondent's motion to compel
compliance with demand for acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment.
ORDER (1) GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO OFFSET JUDGMENTS AND TO RECALL AND QUASH THE WRIT OF
EXECUTION; AND (2) DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO RESCIND ORDER AND LIFT STAY OF ENFORCEMENT
ENTERED JANUARY 3, 2014Oo em YN DA WH BF WN
bw oN NY MY NY NYY Se ee ewe ee em eS he
RoR hE BB Ye FS Fe UAE OR STS
The partnership judgment offsets the judgment in this case and the court recalls and
quashes the writ of execution. The $1.5 million partnership judgment was assigned to
respondent (LLC) and under any calculation, that judgment exceeds what petitioner is owed
in the instant matter. Accordingly, the court finds that there is an offset. The Court of Appeal
did not directly resolve the offset issue and petitioner fails to distinguish respondent’s
authorities.
“{E]quitable offset is a means by which a debtor may satisfy in whole or in part a
judgment or claim held against him out of a judgment or claim which he has subsequently
acquired against his judgment creditor. The right exists independently of statute and rests
upon the inherent power of the court to do justice to the parties before it...’And a judgment
debtor who has, by assignment or otherwise, become the owner of a judgment or claim
against his judgment creditor, may go into the court in which the judgment against him was
rendered and have his judgment offset against the first judgment’” Salaman v. Bolt (1977)
74 Cal.App.3d 907, 918.
“[A] judgment debtor who has acquired a judgment or claim against his judgment
creditor may ask the court in which the judgment against him was rendered to have his
judgment or claim offset against the first judgment. The offset of judgment against judgment
is a matter of right absent the existence of facts establishing competing equities or an
equitable defense precluding the offset.” Brienza_v. Tepper (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1839,
1847-1848.
The court need not resolve the precise amount of the partnership judgment that is
outstanding after the offset. Whether the court relies on the 2008 settlement agreement or
the Lalanne Ranch Partnership Agreement—which respondent would be subject to based
upon the assignment—the remainder of the partnership judgment should be arbitrated.
Hil
“it
Mtl
2
ORDER (1) GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO OFFSET JUDGMENTS AND TO RECALL AND QUASH THE WRIT OF
EXECUTION; AND (2) DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO RESCIND ORDER AND LIFT STAY OF ENFORCEMENT
ENTERED JANUARY 3, 2014The court DENIES petitioner's motion to rescind order and lift stay of enforcement
entered January 3, 2014, as moot.
hy
nith
sa Ceti F201
3
ORDER (1) GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO OFFSET JUDGMENTS AND TO RECALL AND QUASH THE WRIT OF
EXECUTION; AND (2) DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO RESCIND ORDER AND LIFT STAY OF ENFORCEMENT
ENTERED JANUARY 3, 2014SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Francisco
ROBERT LALANNE, Case No. CPF-13-513216
Petitioner, CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
(CCP 1013a (4) )
VS.
MICHELE ARMANINO and LALANNE LLC,
Respondents.
I, T. Michael Yuen, Clerk of the Superior Court of the County of San Francisco,
certify that | am not a party to the within action.
On the below date, I served the attached ORDER (1) GRANTING RESPONDENTS'
MOTION TO OFFSET JUDGMENTS AND TO RECALL AND QUASH THE WRIT OF
EXECUTION; AND (2) DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO RESCIND ORDER AND
LIFT STAY OF ENFORCEMENT ENTERED JANUARY 3, 2014 by placing a copy thereof in
a sealed envelope, addressed as follows:
Folger Levin LLP
Mr. Roger B. Mead
199 Fremont St., 20" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Christopher Andreas, Esq.
Attorney at Law
P.O, Box 15699
San Francisco, CA 94115
4
ORDER (1) GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO OFFSET JUDGMENTS AND TO RECALL AND QUASH THE WRIT OF
EXECUTION; AND (2) DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO RESCIND ORDER AND LIFT STAY OF ENFORCEMENT
ENTERED JANUARY 3, 2014and, I then placed the sealed envelopes in the outgoing mail at 400 McAllister Street, San
Francisco, CA. 94102 on the date indicated below for collection, attachment of required prepaid
postage, and mailing on that date following standard court practices.
Dated: DEC 0 9 2015
T. MICHAEL YUEN, Clerk
By:
Deputy Clerk
5.
ORDER (1) GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO OFFSET JUDGMENTS AND TO RECALL AND QUASH THE WRIT OF
EXECUTION; AND (2) DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO RESCIND ORDER AND LIFT STAY OF ENFORCEMENT
ENTERED JANUARY 3, 2014