McCoy Electric v. Anette Rubin and Stuart Rubin

Case Number

16CV03591

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 03/03/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

1) Plaintiff's 2nd Mtn for Order to Charge Judgment Debtors’ Interests in Partnerships and Limited Liability Companies 2) Cross Defendant and Cross Complainant's Mtn for Order to Charge Judgment Debtors’ Interests in Partnerships and Limited Liability Com

Tentative Ruling

McCoy Electric v. Anette Rubin and Stuart Rubin     

Case No. 16CV03591

           

Hearing Date: March 3, 2025                                     

HEARING:              1. Plaintiff McCoy Electric Corporation’s Second Motion for Order to Charge Judgment Debtors’ Interests in Partnerships and Limited Liability Companies

                                    2. Cross Defendant and Cross Complainant James Davis dba Wade Davis Design’s Motion for Order to Charge Judgment Debtors’ Interests in Partnerships and Limited Liability Companies

                                                             

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff McCoy Electric.: Daniel E. Engel

                                    For Defendants Annette Rubin and A. Stuart Rubin: Self- Represented

                                    For Cross Defendant/Cross Complainant The Los Canoas Co.      dba Construction Plumbing: Daniel E. Engel

                                    For Cross Defendant/Cross Complainant James Davis dba           Wade Davis Design: Daniel E. Engel

                                    For Intervening Party U.S. Real Estate Credit Holdings III-A,

                                                LP: Marsha A. Houston, Christopher O. Rivas

                                   

                                   

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.  Plaintiff McCoy Electric Corporation’s and Cross Defendant and Cross Complainant James Davis dba Wade Davis Design’s motions for orders to charge judgment debtors’ interests in partnerships and limited liability companies is granted.

2.         Counsel for the moving parties shall prepare formal Orders, for each of the moving parties, containing the language set forth in the below analysis.

Background:

This action arises out of a remodeling project at residential property located at 4347 Marina Drive, Santa Barbara, California 93110. The Property was owned by defendants and cross-complainants Annette Rubin and A. Stuart Rubin (“Rubins”).

Plaintiff and cross-defendant McCoy Electric Corporation (“McCoy”), an electrical contractor, commenced the action on August 15, 2016, claiming that it was still owed sums for labor and materials furnished at the Property. In response, the Rubins cross-complained against McCoy and its principal, Richard McCoy, for breach of contract, negligent construction, overcharging, conversion of materials, and accounting. The Rubins cross-complained against Wade Davis Design, as well as several other parties, on September 19, 2019, asserting causes of action for negligence, products liability, and breach of contract.

James Davis dba Wade Davis Design (“WDD”), erroneously sued as Wade Davis Design, filed an answer to the Rubin’s cross-complaint on October 30, 2019, asserting a general denial and 20 affirmative defenses. On April 1, 2020, WDD  cross-complained against the Rubins, alleging a claim for breach of written contract.

On August 15, 2022, following a court trial, Judgment was entered in favor of WDD, and against the Rubins, for costs in the amount of $435.00. Since that time, attorneys’ fees were awarded to WDD, resulting in a total judgment of $289,704.76.

On November 2, 2022, following a court trial, Judgment was entered in favor of McCoy, and against the Rubins, for $355,279.10 in damages plus $65,878.70 in attorney fees and costs. Since that time, the amount owed by the Rubins to McCoy has increased. By way of McCoy’s renewal of judgment filed on June 14, 2024, the Rubins owed a total of $487,534.31.

McCoy and WDD (collectively “moving parties”) now seek orders charging the interest of the Rubins in several partnerships and limited liability companies.

The Rubins have not filed opposition or any other responsive document to the motion.

Intervenor, U.S. Real Estate Credit Holdings III-A, LP (“USRECH”) has filed a limited objection to the motion to protect what it argues are priority liens.

Analysis:

“If a money judgment is rendered against a partner or member but not against the partnership or limited liability company, the judgment debtor’s interest in the partnership or limited liability company may be applied toward the satisfaction of the judgment by an order charging the judgment debtor’s interest pursuant to Section 15907.03, 16504, or 17705.03 of the Corporations Code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.310.)

Moving parties have previously established, and again establish, for purposes of this motion, that the Rubins hold interests, either directly or indirectly, in all the limited liability companies and limited partnerships listed in the motion. Charging orders are appropriate in order for the moving parties to attempt collection on their judgments against the Rubins.

As noted above, intervening party, USRECH, filed limited objections to the motions. USRECH only objects to the motion to the extent that it requests that the court “makes it clear when it rules on the Charging Motion[s] that its rulings are not intended, nor shall they be interpreted to be an adjudication of the existence, validity, enforceability or propriety of USRECH’s liens.”

As has been the case with prior rulings on motions for charging orders in this case, USRECH’s request is reasonable.

The motions will be granted, and the moving parties will be instructed to prepare orders, for each of the entities identified in its motions, that utilizes the following language:

“The motion of [Moving Party] came regularly for hearing on March 3, 2025, before Hon. Colleen K. Sterne, in Department 5 of the above-entitled court, with appearances by counsel as follows: [list the names of the persons who appeared at the hearing and, as applicable, who they represented]. The court having considered the documents filed in connection with the motion and heard the argument of counsel, and good cause appearing:

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That the interest of Annette Rubin or A. Stuart Rubin in the [partnership or LLC] known as [Name of partnership or LLC], whose address is [address of partnership or LLC] [is/are] hereby charged with the unpaid balance of the judgment entered in favor of [Moving Party] and against Annette Rubin and A. Stuart Rubin, jointly and severally, on [Date of Judgment], in the sum of [Amount of Judgment] plus interest thereon at the rate of 10 percent per annum from [Date of Judgment].

2. That [Name of partnership or LLC and its members or general partners] shall pay any money or property due or to become due to Annette Rubin or A. Stuart Rubin directly to [Moving Party] until the amount remaining due on the judgment, plus all accrued interest, is paid in full.

3. Absent further Order of this court or another court of competent jurisdiction: That should U.S. Real Estate Credit Holdings III-A, LP hold a senior-priority lien, pursuant to writs of attachment or other lien, [Name of partnership or LLC] shall honor and fully satisfy the lien of U.S. Real Estate Credit Holdings III-A, LP prior to paying any money or property due, pursuant to this order, to [Moving Party].”

Moving parties may prepare the orders in the format that their counsel has previously utilized for charging orders in this matter. Separate orders are to be prepared for each of the moving parties.