Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-00097/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-00097-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

02cv0097

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF

THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBIN HARTLEY,

Defendant. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 02-CV-0097-L(LSP)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION AS

MODIFIED; (2) DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR A TURNOVER ORDER; AND (3)

ENJOINING THIRD PARTY KIMSONN

PROM PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV.

PROC. CODE § 708.180(d)

Plaintiff The Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Diego (“RDA”) filed a Motion

for a Turnover Order in Aid of Execution (“Motion”) in an effort to obtain partial satisfaction of

the default judgment in the amount of over $170,000, which was entered against Defendant

Robin Hartley (“Hartley”) on October 15, 2002. According to RDA, Hartley has not made any

payment toward the judgment, and the judgment remains wholly unsatisfied. 

The Motion seeks the turnover of a green 1998 Lincoln Navigator, Oregon license plate

number YYH189, which is registered in Hartley’s name but is in possession of Third Party

Kimsonn Prom (“Prom”). At her judgment debtor examination, Prom explained she received the

vehicle from Hartley on December 1, 2005 in satisfaction of a $3,000 debt he owed her. 

According to RDA, the vehicle had a Kelly Blue Book value of $15,000 at that time. 

On May 31, 2006, the Motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Leo S. Papas for a report

and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). On September 20, 2006, Judge Papas

Case 3:02-cv-00097-L-LSP Document 74 Filed 12/05/06 Page 1 of 5
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 02cv0097

issued a Report and Recommendation Granting Motion for Turnover Order in Aid of Execution

and Recommending Injunction Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 708.180(d)

(“Report and Recommendation”). Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation.

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision” on a

dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties

for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall

make a de novo determination . . . of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which

specific written objection has been made . . ..” Id. The district judge need not review the

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in the absence of objections. See United

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). However, review is not

precluded in the absence of objections. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 provides for the enforcement of money judgments

obtained in Federal Court “in accordance with the practice and procedure of the state in which

the district court is held, . . ..” Accordingly, California’s detailed and comprehensive scheme,

Enforcement of Judgments Law, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 680.101-724.260, governs the manner

and extent to which civil judgments are enforceable. See Imperial Bank v. Pim Elec., Inc., 33

Cal. App. 4th 540, 546 (1995). 

Under these provisions, a judgment creditor may apply to a court for a judgment debtor

examination, which may include examination of third parties in possession or control of the

debtor’s property:

Examination proceedings (also called proceedings in aid of execution or

supplementary proceedings) are one of several special procedures designed to aid

judgment creditors. They permit the judgment creditor to examine the judgment

debtor, or third persons who have property of or are indebted to the judgment

debtor, in order to discover property and apply it toward the satisfaction of the

money judgment. 

Id. at 546-47. In examination proceedings, the court “may order the person examined, be it the

judgment debtor or a third person, to deliver property or funds to a levying officer or directly to

the judgment creditor.” Id. at 547; see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 708.205 (third party orders).

/ / / / / 

Case 3:02-cv-00097-L-LSP Document 74 Filed 12/05/06 Page 2 of 5
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

1 In light of this claim, RDA obtained leave from the Magistrate Judge to serve Prom and

Hartley with a Judgment Creditor’s Demand for Third Party Claim pursuant to California Civil

Procedure Code Section 720.530. The demand as well as section 720.530 are directed at persons

claiming a security interest or lien in the property. Neither Prom nor Hartley filed a claim or otherwise

responded to the demand. To the extent either of them claimed a security interest or lien in the

Navigator, they are deemed to have waived any priority they may have over RDA’s claim. See Cal. Civ.

Proc. Code § 720.550(a). 

However, since Prom claims an ownership or possessory interest in the vehicle, her

failure to respond or file a claim is irrelevant to the ultimate outcome of the Motion. “The third-party

claims procedure . . . may be utilized to assert superior claims of ownership or right to possession where

personal property has been levied upon.” Regency Outdoor Adver. v. Carolina Lanes, Inc., 31 Cal. App.

4th 1323, 1329 (1995). This procedure is “optional and the third-party does not waive a superior

interest in the property levied upon by failure to make such a third-party claim.” Id.; see also Cal. Civ.

Proc. Code § 720.110 (“A third person claiming ownership or the right to possession of property may

make a third party claim”) (emphasis added). 

2 The alternative procedure is a creditor’s suit pursuant to section 708.210 et seq. Evans v.

Paye, 32 Cal. App. 4th 265, 276-77 (1995). This procedure is considered more expensive and

cumbersome than a section 708.180 hearing, which is generally applicable to the “normal case.” Id. The circumstances when the determination of interests in property can not be made at a section 708.180

hearing are enumerated in section 708.180(b). Id. at 280. 

3 02cv0097

RDA examined Prom pursuant to this procedure, discovered she was in possession of

Hartley’s vehicle, and that she asserted an interest in the vehicle, since she claimed she received

it from Hartley in repayment of a debt he owed her. RDA filed the instant Motion in an attempt

to obtain turnover of the vehicle and its related documents of title. (Mot. at 4.) 

On August 10, 2006, the Magistrate Judge held a hearing on the Motion. Prom appeared

and claimed she had an interest in Navigator.1

 (R&R at 3.) On September 19, 2006, the

Magistrate Judge held another hearing on RDA’s Motion, Prom again appeared, and she again

claimed an interest in the vehicle. (R&R at 3.) 

One of the procedures applicable to this circumstance is embodied in section 708.180,

which authorizes the court to determine the interests in the property when a third party claims an

interest adverse to the judgment debtor.2

 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 708.180(a); see also Evans v.

Paye, 32 Cal. App. 4th 265 (1995). 

The Magistrate Judge did not make a determination of the interests in the Navigator. 

Based on the evidence before him, he recommended an order issue pursuant to section

708.180(d), forbidding Prom from transferring or otherwise disposing of the Navigator until

such a determination could be made. (R&R at 4.) In order to make this recommendation, the

Magistrate Judge must have “determine[d] that the judgment debtor probably owns an interest in

Case 3:02-cv-00097-L-LSP Document 74 Filed 12/05/06 Page 3 of 5
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 02cv0097

the property.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 708.180(d). Although he does not expressly make this

finding in the Report and Recommendation, the court finds it is implied, since it is legally

required and reasonably supported by the record. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation

is MODIFIED to include this requisite finding as a proposed finding, which this court adopts.

The proposed section 708.180(d) injunction does not afford RDA the relief sought in its

Motion, since RDA sought a turnover order pursuant to section 708.205(a). Accordingly, the

Report and Recommendation is MODIFIED to the extent it recommends that RDA’s Motion be

granted at this time. The Magistrate Judge found “there is a factual dispute regarding the

ownership of the Navigator, which cannot be resolved until the Court determines the interests in

the Navigator.” (R&R at 4.) Based on this finding, a turnover order can not issue at this time. It

can only issue after a determination of interests in the Navigator. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 

708.180(a) & (d); see also § 708.205(b). 

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation Granting Motion for Turnover Order in Aid of

Execution and Recommending Injunction Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 

§ 708.180(d), filed September 20, 2006, is ADOPTED AS MODIFIED.

2. Third Party Kimsonn Prom is hereby ENJOINED pursuant to California Civil

Procedure Code Section 708.180(d) from transferring or otherwise disposing of the 1998

Lincoln Navigator, Oregon license plate number YYH189, to any person until the interests in

this vehicle are determined. The Preliminary Injunction issued on September 29, 2006 is hereby

superseded.

3. RDA’s Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to seeking a determination of

the interests in the Navigator pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code Section 708.180(a). If

RDA desires to move for such a determination, it is instructed to contact the chambers of

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

Case 3:02-cv-00097-L-LSP Document 74 Filed 12/05/06 Page 4 of 5
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 02cv0097

Magistrate Judge Leo S. Papas to secure any scheduling, filing and/or hearing dates, as this

matter was referred to him by order filed May 31, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 5, 2006

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LEO S. PAPAS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

KIMSONN PROM

32873 CANYON CREST STREET

WILDOMAR, CA 92585

Case 3:02-cv-00097-L-LSP Document 74 Filed 12/05/06 Page 5 of 5