Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01678/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01678-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

15-cv-01678-LAB-AGS

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

Textron Financial Corp.,

Plaintiff,

v.

Michael S. Gallegos, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 15-cv-01678-LAB-AGS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO:

(1) GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN 

PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

ASSIGNMENT AND TURNOVER 

ORDER [Doc. 93], AND

(2) DENY AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO AMEND ITS 

CHARGING ORDER [Doc. 92]

Plaintiff has a roughly $22 million dollar judgment against defendant Michael 

Gallegos. But Gallegos allegedly never paid a dime towards the debt. While Gallegos 

claims he is destitute, plaintiff argues that he is in fact living a posh lifestyle, driving luxury 

cars, and paying tens of thousands of dollars each year for his daughters’ college tuition. 

He does this, according to plaintiff, by hiding his assets in various companies and entities 

in which he has an interest.

Based on these allegations, the Court previously granted a charging order requiring 

30 entities to pay any money or property due to Gallegos directly to plaintiff SPE LO 

Case 3:15-cv-01678-LAB-AGS Document 186 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

15-cv-01678-LAB-AGS

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

Holdings, LLC (as successor-in-interest to Textron Financial Corporation), to satisfy the 

judgment. [Doc. 85.] SPE LO now seeks: (1) amendment of that charging order to add an 

additional 24 entities; and (2) assignment of Gallegos’s interests in 122 entities—including 

all 24 in the charging order motion—and a turnover order for records from all those entities. 

Gallegos does not oppose the assignment of his interest in the 122 entities. And at 

yesterday’s hearing, both parties agreed that granting that assignment would moot the 

charging order motion. But Gallegos objectsto the turnover order as overbroad, as it would 

cover records from entities that have allegedly been defunct for decades. Instead, Gallegos 

suggests that the turnover order be limited to the past four years. At the hearing, SPE LO 

did not object to such a time limit, and the Court concurs that a time restriction would be 

useful to avoid waste and expense. Because Judge Burns previously found that Gallegos 

had “play[ed] coy” and warned him that “the Court won’t tolerate a cavalier attitude toward 

discovery obligations,” [Doc. 85], this Court believes that the time limitation should extend 

to the beginning of this suit, on April 5, 2011.

Thus, this Court recommends:

(1) The motion to amend the charging order be DENIED as moot;

(2) The motion for assignment and for a turnover order be GRANTED in part and 

DENIED in part, with the motion granted in its entirety except that the turnover order shall 

be limited to records dating back to April 5, 2011. 

Any objection to this Report and Recommendation is due by April 21, 2017. Failure 

to file an objection may result in waiver of the issue on appeal. 

Dated: April 7, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-01678-LAB-AGS Document 186 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2