Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04792/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04792-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 42:9607 Real Property Tort to Land

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SLEEPY HOLLOW INVESTMENT

COMPANY NO. 2,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

PROTOTEK, INC., et al.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 03-4792 MMC (MEJ)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT ORDER

I. BACKGROUND

In the present action, plaintiff Sleepy Hollow Investment Company No. 2 ("Sleepy Hollow")

sought to recover damages from defendants Prototek, Inc. and Prototek II, Inc. (collectively

"Prototek") for breach of lease, and for violation of Federal CERCLA statutes, Declaratory Relief,

Nuisance, Trespass, Negligence, and Waste arising out of Prototek's use and abandonment of

premises in breach of a lease for commercial property. The other defendants sued by Sleepy Hollow

in this matter are either officers, directors, or controlling shareholders of Prototek or Enzyme

Service Products, Inc., which shared the leased premises with Prototek for a period of time. Sleepy

Hollow settled with all defendants other than Prototek.

On February 11, 2005, Sleepy Hollow filed a Motion for Default Judgment as to Prototek

and, on May 20, 2005, the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney granted judgment against Prototek in the

amount of $263,621.80, with interest at the rate of 3.35% until paid. According to Sleepy Hollow,

no payments have been received from Prototek. Decl. of Terrence Meyerhoff in Support of Motion

for Assignment Order at ¶ 3.

Case 3:03-cv-04792-MMC Document 107 Filed 02/03/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Now before the Court is Sleepy Hollow's Motion for Assignment Order, filed October 31,

2005. In its motion, Sleepy Hollow moves the Court for an order assigning to it, the Judgment

Creditor, title to certain patents of Prototek, the Judgment Debtor, in satisfaction of the May 20

judgment. In the alternative, Sleepy Hollow moves for an order assigning all of Prototek's rights to

payments under certain patents to the extent necessary to satisfy the judgment in full, including

accrued interest up until the date of payment. Sleepy Hollow also moves for an order restraining

Prototek and any servant, agent, employee or attorney for the judgment debtor and any person(s) in

active concert and participating with Prototek from encumbering, assigning, or disposing of the

patents or the rights to payments thereunder.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A district court has authority to enforce its money judgment in accordance with the practice

and procedure of the state in which it sits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a); Duchek v. Jacobi, 646 F.2d 415,

416 (9th Cir. 1981). Under California law, all property of the judgment debtor is subject to

enforcement of a money judgment, including intangible property such as patents and copyrights. 

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 695.010; Pacific Bank v. Robinson, 57 Cal. 520, 524 (1881). The proper

procedure to execute on a patent is to obtain an order of the court directing the patent holder to

assign the patent. Peterson v. Sheriff of San Francisco, 115 Cal. 211, 213 (1896). The assignment

need not be executed personally by the patentee; the court may authorize a court officer to execute

the assignment and the assignment will be binding on the patentee. Id.; Zanetti v. Zanetti, 77

Cal.App.2d 553, 559.

III. APPLICATION TO THE CASE AT BAR

A. Assignment of Prototek's Patents

Here, Sleepy Hollow states that Prototek currently has title to the following patents:

Patent No. Title

1. 6,297,277 Cysteine protease inhibitors containing heterocyclic leaving groups

2. 6,147,188 alpha-(1,3-or 1.2-dicarbonylenol ether methyl ketone) as cysteine protease

inhibitors

Case 3:03-cv-04792-MMC Document 107 Filed 02/03/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 3

3. 5,925,772 Cysteine protease inhibitors containing heterocyclic leaving groups

4. 5,714,484 Alpha-(1,3-dicarbonylenol ether) methyl ketone as cysteine protease

inhibitors

5. 5,663,380 Cysteine protease inhibitors containing heterocyclic leaving groups

6. 5,486,623 Cysteine protease inhibitors containing heterocyclic leaving groups

7. 5,374,623 Cysteine protease inhibitors effective for in vivo use

8. 5,344,939 Process for forming a fluoromethyl ketone

9. 5,210,272 Process for forming a fluoromethyl ketone

10. 5,101,068 Magnesium fluoromalonates

11. 4,908,309 Method of detecting cysteine proteases

Sleepy Hollow requests that the Court direct a court officer to execute an assignment,

assigning to Sleepy Hollow Prototek's title in these patents.

A judgment creditor of a patentee can request that a court execute a money judgment on a

patent, subjecting the patent to the satisfaction of the judgment, and compelling the patentee to

assign the patent. Peterson v. Sheriff of San Francisco, 115 Cal. 211, 213 (1896). In its motion,

Sleepy Hollow states that it is willing to stipulate that the value of the subject patents is $25,000 and

that its judgment against Prototek will be reduced to this amount, thereby fully satisfying the

judgment upon this Court's assignment of the subject patents. While it is convenient to think that the

11 subject patents have a total value roughly equal to the judgment in this matter, Sleepy Hollow has

presented no evidence to substantiate its willing stipulation. Thus, the Court finds it must deny

Sleepy Hollow's motion for an assignment of the subject patents and shall instead look to alternative

means by which to enforce the judgment.

B. Assignment Of Payments Due Under Prototek's Patents

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 708.510 authorizes the Court to issue an order

directing Prototek to assign to Sleepy Hollow all or part of a right to payment due or to become due,

including payments due from a patent, accounts receivable, general intangibles, judgments, and

instruments. Although the Court may take into consideration all relevant factors, the sole constraints

Case 3:03-cv-04792-MMC Document 107 Filed 02/03/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

placed on the Court are that the right to payment be assigned only to the extent necessary to satisfy

the creditor's money judgment and that, where part of the payments are exempt, the amount of

payments assigned should not exceed the difference between the gross amount of the payments and

the exempt amount. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 708.510(c), (d), (e), and (f).

Here, Sleepy Hollow states that it believes there exist rights to payments that are due or will

become due to Prototek under the patents, which rights have not previously been assigned. 

Meyerhoff Decl. at ¶¶ 6, 8. As the Court finds the assignment of payments due a more equitable

means of satisfying the judgment, the Court shall grant Sleepy Hollow's motion to assign payments

due, or to become due, under the patents identified above. This assignment shall remain in place

until such time as the judgment is paid in full, including accrued interest. If Prototek refuses to

comply with this Order, Sleepy Hollow may move the District Court for an order directing a court

officer to make the assignment.

C. Service Of Motion 

In granting Sleepy Hollow's motion for an assignment of payment rights, the Court is aware

that it must also determine whether Sleepy Hollow properly served the motion and related papers on

Prototek. Service must be made personally or by mail. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 708.510(b). Here,

Sleepy Hollow personally served the following individuals:

Samuel Waksal, former President and/or Chief Executive Officer of

Prototek, Inc., served on November 22, 2005.

Laurence D. Jackson and Holly O. Whatley, attorneys of the law firm

of Christa and Jackson, served on October 31, 2005. The law firm of

Christa and Jackson are Waksal's attorneys of record

William Wick, Peggy Radel's last known attorney of record, served on

November 18, 2005. Peggy Radel was a registered agent for service

of process for Prototek. Sleepy Hollow attempted to serve Ms. Radel

on several occasions in November 2005, without success.

William McAvoy, last known registered agent for service of process

for Prototek, served on November 18, 2005.

Decl. of Terrence Meyerhoff in Support of Motion for Assignment Order (second Meyerhoff

declaration, filed January 23, 2006), pp. 2-3.

The Court finds that service upon these four individuals is proper; thus, Sleepy Hollow

Case 3:03-cv-04792-MMC Document 107 Filed 02/03/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 5

provided Prototek with notice of the instant motion and Prototek's failure to respond cannot prohibit

the entry of an assignment order.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court hereby DENIES Sleepy Hollow's motion for an

order assigning title to Prototek's patents, and GRANTS Sleepy Hollow's motion assigning it

Prototek's right to payment due or to become due under the subject patents until such time as the

judgment is paid in full, including accrued interest. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure

708.520, the Court RESTRAINS Prototek from assigning or otherwise disposing of the right to

payment and title to the patents, other than to Sleepy Hollow, so that it might be available for

satisfaction of the judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2006 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:03-cv-04792-MMC Document 107 Filed 02/03/06 Page 5 of 5