Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05878/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05878-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 891
Nature of Suit: Agricultural Acts
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In this action, the jury returned a verdict of $234,970.16 in damages against DDJ, Inc; 

$3,174.94 in damages against DDJ, LLC; $189,000.00 in punitive damages against DDJ, Inc.; and 

$91,000.00 in punitive damages against DDJ, LLC. Plaintiffs also succeeded on their California 

Business and Professions Code § 17200 claim, and they were awarded $1.00 in nominal damages 

against DDJ, Inc. The Court found that Plaintiffs are entitled to pre-judgment interest pursuant to 

California Food and Agriculture Code § 56620 on the damage award for the conversion claim. 

Judgment was entered on August 9, 2004.

On February 26, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice and application for renewal of the judgment. 

No Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s notice and application. Review of the Court’s 

records reveals that neither the Clerk of the Court nor the Court has addressed Plaintiff’s request.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a), state law applies to the procedures used 

“in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of a judgment.” By statute, judgments entered in 

California may be renewed within a ten year period after entry of judgment. See Cal. Civ. Proc.

Code § 683.120 et seq. The entry of a renewal of judgment is a purely ministerial act performed 

JOE FLORES AND CONNIE FLORES,,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DDJ, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:99-CV-5878 AWI DLB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST TO RENEW THE 

JUDGMENT IN THIS ACTION

(Documents # 535 & # 536)

Case 1:99-cv-05878-AWI-BAM Document 551 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

by the Clerk of the Court upon the filing of an application that contains the requisite information. 

See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 683.150(a) (“Upon the filing of the application, the court clerk shall 

enter the renewal of the judgment in the court records”).

California law required Plaintiffs to renew the judgment within 10 years after the 

judgment’s date of entry in order to preserve its validity. Plaintiffs timely filed a notice and 

application to renew the judgment on February 26, 2014, less than ten years after the original 

judgment was entered. As such, Plaintiffs’ notice and application for the renewal of judgment 

shall be granted. 

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ notice and application for renewal of judgment is GRANTED. 

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to renew the judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-05878-AWI-BAM Document 551 Filed 09/24/14 Page 2 of 2