Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-mc-80249/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-mc-80249-16/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Choice Hotels International, Inc.
Plaintiff
Mukesh J. Mowji
Defendant
Anil R. Patel
Defendant
Tarun S. Patel
Defendant
Penta Denver, LLC
Defendant
Penta Hospitality, LLC
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, 

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PENTA DENVER, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-mc-80249-WHA (JSC)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING CONTEMPT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 67, 68

In this debt enforcement action, Plaintiff Choice Hotels International, Inc., seeks to recover 

a money judgment against Defendants Mukesh J. Mowji (“Mowji”) and Tarun S. Patel (“T. Patel”, 

and together, the “judgment debtors”). (Dkt. Nos. 67, 68.) This matter is before the Court on an 

order to show cause why judgment debtors Mowji and Patel should not be held in contempt of 

court for failing to appear for their judgment debtor examinations. Neither Mowji nor Patel filed 

any papers in response to the order to show cause, nor did they appear at the hearing on the order 

to show cause. Having considered the papers and all other evidence of record, the undersigned 

recommends that Mowji and T. Patel be held in contempt.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the Aires declarations and the docket in this action.1 

Plaintiff obtained a default judgment entered against various defendants in the sum of $130,199.48 

in the District of Maryland.2 The Clerk of Court registered the judgment in this District on 

 

1

Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of several documents filed on the docket in this 

action, including examination orders, certificates of service, and civil minutes. (See Dkt. Nos. 67 

& 68 at 9.) These documents are part of the Court’s own docket in this matter, and therefore a 

formal request for judicial notice is unnecessary. See, e.g., Sarantopoulas v. Bank of America, 

N.A., No. C 12-0564 PJH, 2012 WL 4761900, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2012).

2

Specifically, the court in the District of Maryland entered default judgment against Mowji and T. 

Case 3:13-mc-80249-WHA Document 82 Filed 01/22/15 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

November 7, 2013 (Dkt. No. 1), and the matter was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in 

December of 2013. (Dkt. No. 4.) Since that date, Plaintiffs have sought to enforce the judgment 

against the defendants.

In August of 2014, the Court entered Examination Orders directing Mowji and T. Patel to 

appear in court at 9:30 a.m. on October 30 and 31, respectively. (Dkt. Nos. 46, 47.) In addition, 

Subpoenas Duces Tecum issued directing both judgment debtors to appear and bring with them a 

wide range of documents relevant to Plaintiff’s debt collection attempts. (Id.) According to proof 

of service filed on the docket, Plaintiff personally served the orders and subpoenas on Mowji and 

T. Patel on September 26, 2014. (Dkt. Nos. 53, 57.) However, the examinations were not held on

October 30 or 31; although Plaintiff’s counsel came to both scheduled hearings, neither the

judgment debtors nor their counsel appeared as the Court ordered. (Dkt. Nos. 62, 63.)

On November 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed motions seeking orders directing Mowji and T. Patel 

to appear personally and show cause why they each should not be held in contempt for failure to 

abide by the Court’s Examination Orders and Subpoenas Duces Tecum. (Dkt. Nos. 67 and 68.) 

The judgment debtors did not respond to that motion. Accordingly, on December 9, 2014 the 

Court issued an order to show cause why Mowji and Patel should not be found in civil contempt 

based on their failure to follow the Court’s Examination Orders. (Dkt. No. 77.) The Court 

directed the judgment debtors to file any objections to being held in contempt by January 9, 2015 

and held a hearing on the Order to Show Cause on January 22, 2015. Although Plaintiff 

personally served Mowji and T. Patel with the Court’s order, they neither objected to being held in 

contempt nor appeared at the hearing. (Dkt No. 81.)

DISCUSSION

Debtor examination proceedings “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.” Imperial Bank v. 

Pim Elec., Inc., 33 Cal. App. 4th 540, 546-57 (1995); Alcalde v. NAC Real Estate Invs. & 

 

Patel along with defendants Penta Denver, LLC; Penta Hospitality, LLC; and Anil R. Patel. (Dkt. 

No. 1.)

Case 3:13-mc-80249-WHA Document 82 Filed 01/22/15 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Assignments, Inc., 580 F. Supp. 2d 969, 970 (C.D. Cal. 2008). 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 69 governs proceedings to enforce judgments in federal 

court. Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 95 F.3d 848, 851 (9th Cir. 1996). Rule 69 provides that a 

“judgment creditor . . . whose interest appears of record may obtain discovery from any person—

including the judgment debtor—as provided in these rules or by the procedure of the state where 

the court is located.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2). Turning to the applicable state law, “California has 

a comprehensive statutory scheme governing the enforcement of judgments,” which includes 

“specific provisions pertaining to judgment debtor examinations.” Aerielle, LLC v. Maximo 

Prods., LLC, No. C10-03420 HRL, 2012 WL 5834157, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2012). The 

statute defines “judgment creditor” as “the person in whose favor a judgment is rendered.” Cal. 

Code Civ. Proc. § 680.240. Plaintiff in this matter was awarded a judgment of $130,199.48

against defendants Mowji and Tarun S. Patel, among others. (See Dkt. No. 1.)3Thus, Plaintiff is 

a judgment creditor within the meaning of Rule 69, and is thus entitled to examine the judgment 

debtors consistent with California law.

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 708.110 provides that a judgment creditor may 

apply “for an order requiring the judgment debtor to appear before the court . . . at a time and 

place specified in the order, to furnish information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment.” 

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 708.110(a). The judgment creditor must “personally serve a copy of the 

order on the judgment debtor not less than 10 days before the date set for the examination.” Id.

§ 708.110(d). The judgment creditor may also propound discovery to the judgment debtor, 

including requests for production and inspection of documents. Id. §§ 708.010-030.

A judgment debtor may be held in contempt for failure to appear for a judgment debtor 

examination. Id. § 708.170(a)(1) (providing for contempt or issuance of an arrest warrant for 

failure to appear for a debtor’s examination); see, e.g., Alcalde, 580 F. Supp. 2d at 972. In federal 

court, contempt proceedings commence with the issuance of an order to show cause why a party 

should not be found in contempt and notice of a hearing date on the question of contempt. See 

 

3 A third judgment creditor, Anil R. Patel, had agreed to appear for debtor examination, which was

set for December 16, 2014, but he did not appear as ordered. (Dkt. Nos. 60, 78.)

Case 3:13-mc-80249-WHA Document 82 Filed 01/22/15 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Alcalde, 580 F. Supp. 2d at 971 (citations omitted). In the contempt hearing that follows, the 

“moving party has the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the contemnors 

violated a specific and definite order of the court. The burden then shifts to the contemnors to 

demonstrate why they were unable to comply” with that order. FTC v. Enforma Natural Prods., 

Inc., 362 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). “In fashioning civil contempt

sanctions, the court has the discretion to award reasonable fees and costs as a remedial measure, 

regardless of whether the party that is in contempt acted willfully.” In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) 

Antitrust Litig., 289 F.R.D. 548 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (citing Perry v. O’Donnell, 759 F.2d 702, 704-05 

(9th Cir. 1985)).

Importantly, where the parties have not consented to proceed before a magistrate judge for 

all purposes and a question of civil contempt arises, only the District Court can determine whether 

to hold a party in contempt. 28 U.S.C. § 636(e). In such circumstances, the magistrate judge 

certifies facts to the district judge, which then determines whether the conduct complained of “is 

such as to warrant punishment,” and determines the proper punishment. Id. § 636(e)(6)(B)(iii).

Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that Plaintiff has met its burden of demonstrating 

that the judgment debtors violated the specific and definite order of the court setting their 

judgment debtor examinations. In addition, based on their non-opposition to the order to show 

cause and nonappearance the hearing, the undersigned concludes that the judgment debtors have 

failed to demonstrate why they should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with those 

orders. Thus, the undersigned recommends that Mowji and T. Patel be held in contempt. See

Alcalde v. NAC Real Estate Invs. & Assignments, Inc., 580 F. Supp. 2d 969, 971 (C.D. Cal. 2008) 

(recommending holding judgment debtors in contempt for violating the court’s order to appear for 

debtor examinations and produce documents).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons described above, the undersigned recommends that an order be issued 

holding Mowji and Patel in contempt of court. Any party may file objections to this report and 

recommendation with the district judge within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Civ. L.R. 72-3. Plaintiff shall personally 

Case 3:13-mc-80249-WHA Document 82 Filed 01/22/15 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

serve a copy of this report and recommendation on the judgment debtors and file a certificate of 

service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2015

______________________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-mc-80249-WHA Document 82 Filed 01/22/15 Page 5 of 5