Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_97-cv-04541/USCOURTS-cand-3_97-cv-04541-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Terry Jackson
Defendant
Kofi Opong-Mensah
Plaintiff
State of California Department of Food and Agriculture
Defendant

Document Text:

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KOFI OPONG-MENSAH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TERRY JACKSON and THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD

AND AGRICULTURE,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-97-4541 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

“MOTION FOR ACCOUNTING ON

SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT”;

VACATING HEARING 

(Docket No. 162)

Before the Court is plaintiff’s “Motion for Accounting on Satisfaction of Judgment,”

filed November 29, 2006. Defendants have filed opposition; plaintiff has filed a reply. 

Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court

finds the matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument, see Civil L.R. 7-1(b),

hereby VACATES the January 19, 2007 hearing, and rules as follows.

On July 14, 1999, in the above-titled action, the Court granted summary judgment in

favor of defendants and, on September 9, 1999, awarded defendants their costs in the

amount of $11,993.69. (See Opong-Mensah Decl. Ex. 3 at 2.) Thereafter, defendants filed

an abstract of judgment with the Contra Costa County Recorders’ Officer. (See id. Ex. 2.) 

On October 20, 2003, Old Republic Title Company (“Old Republic”), apparently in

connection with a property sale by plaintiff, sent a form to defendants, notifying them that it

Case 3:97-cv-04541-MMC Document 165 Filed 01/11/07 Page 1 of 3
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

 Although the Clerk excluded the sanctions from defendants’ bill of costs because

such amount was “[o]utside [the] ambit of costs allowed under Civil L.R. 54-3 and 28 U.S.C.

§ 1920,” (see Opong-Mensah Decl. Ex. 3 at 2), such action did not vacate the Court’s order

imposing the sanctions. Thus, although defendants were not entitled to recover the

sanctions as costs, plaintiff nonetheless was required to pay $3220 to defendants as

sanctions. 

2

intended to satisfy the judgment upon close of escrow and asking defendants to state the

amount of their demand. (See id. Ex. 3 at 1.) Defendants responded that the principal

amount due was $15,000, (see id.), and on November 18, 2003, Old Republic paid

defendants the sum of $15,000 in satisfaction of the judgment against plaintiff, (see id.

Ex. 4).

Plaintiff now seeks an accounting from defendants of the difference between the

$11,993.69 in costs awarded to defendants in the instant action on September 9, 1999,

(see id. Ex. 3 at 2), and the $15,000 paid to defendants by Old Republic in satisfaction of

judgment. Plaintiff further seeks “the sum of $15,000,” “the costs of the suit herein

incurred,” and “attorneys fees.” (See Motion at 3.)

Plaintiff’s motion arises from a misunderstanding of the dollar amount he was

ordered to pay defendants in the instant action. In particular, plaintiff fails to recognize that

in addition to being ordered to pay the above-referenced costs to defendants, he was also

ordered to pay sanctions to defendants in the amount of $3220.1 (See Order Re: Discovery

Sanctions, filed March 22, 1999, at 2.) Consequently, the total amount plaintiff was

ordered to pay defendants, exclusive of post-judgment interest, was $15,213.69

($11,993.69 in costs plus $3220 in sanctions). Plaintiff has not demonstrated that

defendants’ collection of $15,000 as satisfaction of judgment was inappropriate. As a

result, plaintiff is not entitled to recover the $15,000 sum paid in satisfaction of judgment,

nor has he established a right to costs or attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing the instant

motion.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s motion is hereby GRANTED

in part and DENIED in part:

1. To the extent plaintiff seek an accounting, the motion is GRANTED. The

Case 3:97-cv-04541-MMC Document 165 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 3
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

requested accounting is set forth herein; defendant need not take any additional action in

response to the instant order.

2. To the extent plaintiff seeks to recover the $15,000 sum paid in satisfaction of

judgment, and to recover costs and attorneys’ fees, the motion is DENIED.

This order terminates Docket No. 162.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2007 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:97-cv-04541-MMC Document 165 Filed 01/11/07 Page 3 of 3