arrow left
arrow right
  • ROBERT LALANNE VS. MICHELE ARMANINO et al PETITION RE: ARBITRATION document preview
  • ROBERT LALANNE VS. MICHELE ARMANINO et al PETITION RE: ARBITRATION document preview
  • ROBERT LALANNE VS. MICHELE ARMANINO et al PETITION RE: ARBITRATION document preview
  • ROBERT LALANNE VS. MICHELE ARMANINO et al PETITION RE: ARBITRATION document preview
  • ROBERT LALANNE VS. MICHELE ARMANINO et al PETITION RE: ARBITRATION document preview
  • ROBERT LALANNE VS. MICHELE ARMANINO et al PETITION RE: ARBITRATION document preview
  • ROBERT LALANNE VS. MICHELE ARMANINO et al PETITION RE: ARBITRATION document preview
  • ROBERT LALANNE VS. MICHELE ARMANINO et al PETITION RE: ARBITRATION document preview
						
                                

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