Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01553/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01553-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed Question: Fed Communications Act of 1934

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DISH NETWORK L.L.C., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SONICVIEW USA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09-cv-1553-L(WVG)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO

JUDGMENT DEBTOR DANIAL

PIERCE’S CLAIM OF EXEMPTION

[DOC. 254]

On May 31, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiffs Dish Network L.L.C., Echostar

Technologies L.L.C., and Nagrastar L.L.C.’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 181.) An

order entering judgment against Defendants Sonicview USA, Inc., Roberto Sanz, Danial Pierce,

and Alan Phu (“Sonicview Defendants”) in the amount of $64,980,200, and against Defendants

Duane Bernard and Courtney Bernard in the amount of $984,800 jointly and severally followed. 

(Doc. 182.) Plaintiffs are currently attempting to enforce and collect on the judgment against

Mr. Pierce, including levying funds in his account with the Armed Forces Bank. 

On July 20, 2012, copies of the Notice of Levy, Writ of Execution, and Memorandum of

Garnishee with respect to the Armed Forces Bank were served on Mr. Pierce. (Doc. 225.) 

Thereafter, on August 14, 2012, Mr. Pierce filed a Claim of Exemption with the levying officer

with respect to “All funds in my account at Armed Forces Bank,” and claimed federal

09cv1553

Case 3:09-cv-01553-L-WVG Document 272 Filed 10/11/12 Page 1 of 4
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

exemptions under 10 U.S.C. § 1440, 38 U.S.C. § 3101, and 5 U.S.C. § 8356. (Holmes Decl. Ex.

1.) To support his claim, Mr. Pierce alleged that “[a]ll funds deposited are exempt Military

Retirement/Veterans Benefits and/or Civil Service Retirement.” (Id.) Plaintiffs now move to

oppose that claim of exemption. Mr. Pierce opposes Plaintiffs’ motion.

The Court found this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted and

without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d.1). (Doc. 263.) For the following reasons, the Court

GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion. (Doc. 254.)

I. ANALYSIS

California Code of Civil Procedure § 703.520(a) states that:

The claimant maymake a claim of exemption by filing with the levying

officer a claim of exemption together with a copy thereof. The claim

shall be made within 10 days after the date the notice of levy on the

property claimed to be exempt was served on the judgment debtor.

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 703.520(a).

A copy of the Notice of Levy with respect to the property held in Mr. Pierce’s name by

the Armed Forces Bank was served on him in Sierra Vista, Arizona on July 20, 2012 by the

United States Postal Service from San Diego, California. (Doc. 225.) Under § 703.520(a), the

Claim of Exemption should have been filed within 10 days after service of the Notice of Levy,

or by July 30, 2012. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 703.520. But since Mr. Pierce was served with

a copy of the Notice of Levy in Arizona, he was permitted 10 additional calendar days from the

July 30, 2012 due date. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1013(a) (“Service is complete at the time of

the deposit, but any period of notice and any right or duty to do any act or make any response

within any period or on a date after service of the document, which time period or date is

prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended . . . 10 calendar days if either the place of

mailing or the place of address is outside the State of California but within the United States”). 

Consequently, Mr. Pierce was required to file his Claim of Exemption by August 9, 2012. See

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 703.520(a), 1013(a).

Mr. Pierce filed his Claim of Exemption on August 14, 2012, five days after it was due. 

(See Holmes Decl. Ex 1.) Thus, the Claim of Exemption is untimely. 

09cv1553

2

Case 3:09-cv-01553-L-WVG Document 272 Filed 10/11/12 Page 2 of 4
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 response, Mr. Pierce argues that the account is protected because “[a]s attested to in the

accompanying Declaration of Mr. Pierce, the sources of all of the funds in that account are

governmental benefits exempt from collection by judgment creditors under both federal and

applicable California law” (Def.’s Opp’n 1:13–16), and that the Court should relieve Mr. Pierce

of his untimely submission because “due to his lack of knowledge of legal process, he was

unaware of the procedures and timing to exempt his governmental benefits from the[] attempted

collection by Plaintiffs” (id. at 3:1–9). Addressing the first argument, Plaintiffs submit records

received from the Armed Forces Bank that show that the account contains commingled nonexempt funds, including deposits from Viewtech, Inc., and deposits with the heading “Sonicview

USA in impound 5 Viewtech Inc.” (Craven Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex. 1.) Aside from the issue that Mr.

Pierce may have made material misrepresentations to the Court, the evidence before the Court

suggests that all of the funds in the Armed Force Bank account are not governmental benefits. 

Addressing the second argument, lack of knowledge of the law is not a reason to grant relief

from following that particular law. Ignorance as a defense is especially absurd because Mr.

Pierce is represented by counsel who is trained in law and familiar with the legal process.

Ultimately, because of the procedural defect in filing his claim, Mr. Pierce is time-barred

and has waived his right to make any claim of exemption with respect to the property held by the

Armed Forces Bank. However, Plaintiffs fail to provide any statute or case law that show that

claims of exemption to governmental-benefits funds that fall under 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a) or

California Code of Civil Procedure § 483.013 can be waived. Accordingly, if Mr. Pierce can 1

identify specific funds in the Armed Forces Bank account that are governmental benefits exempt

under 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a) or California Code of Civil Procedure § 483.013, and show that

claims of exemption to those funds cannot be waived, then those funds shall be exempt from

collection. Absent that showing, no funds held in Mr. Pierce’s name by the Armed Forces Bank

can be claimed as exempt. See Tinsley v. Bauer, 125 Cal. App. 2d 724, 734 (1954) (judgment

 Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, California Code of Civil Procedure § 703.520(a) does 1

not address whether governmental benefits funds that are exempt from claims from creditors

under 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a) or California Code of Civil Procedure § 483.013 can be waived.

09cv1553

3

Case 3:09-cv-01553-L-WVG Document 272 Filed 10/11/12 Page 3 of 4
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

creditor should not suffer because of the fact that assets on which it is entitled to levy and assets

which husband can claim as exempt are so commingled that the husband cannot demonstrate

exactly how much is exempt from levy). 

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion in opposition to Mr.

Pierce’s claim of exemption. (Doc. 254.) If Mr. Pierce chooses to show that some or all of the

funds in his Armed Forces Bank account are protected governmental-benefits funds under 38

U.S.C. § 5301(a) or California Code of Civil Procedure § 483.013, he must do so within 7

calendar days after the issuance of this order. Plaintiffs may respond within 7 calendar days of

being served with that brief. None of these briefs shall exceed 5 pages in length.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 11, 2012

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. WILLIAM V. GALLO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

09cv1553

4

Case 3:09-cv-01553-L-WVG Document 272 Filed 10/11/12 Page 4 of 4