Tentative Ruling: Sean Wilczak vs Brian Gooch
Case Number
22CV01201
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Mon, 03/30/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Order to Show Cause
Tentative Ruling
Sean Wilczak v. Brian Gooch
Case No. 22CV01201
Hearing Date: January 26, 2026
HEARING: Order to Show Cause re Turnover Orders
ATTORNEYS: For Judgment Creditor Gretchen D. Lichtenberger: Self-represented
For Defendant-Judgment Debtor Brian Gooch: Self-represented
TENTATIVE RULING:
(See below.)
Background:
On March 28, 2022, plaintiff Sean Wilczak filed this action against defendant Brian Gooch asserting two causes of action for breach of contract.
On November 10, 2022, Wilczak requested, and the court entered, default against Gooch.
On March 29, 2023, the court entered its default judgment against Gooch in the amount of $204,375.21, including attorney fees and costs. Notice of entry of judgment was filed and served on April 26, 2023.
On June 2, 2023, Wilczak filed an acknowledgement of assignment of judgment to judgment creditor Gretchen D. Lichtenberger dba Justice Matters.
On March 25, 2024, Lichtenberger filed a Notice of Liens Created and Perfected by Judgment Creditor.
On November 4, 2024, the court extended the personal property judgment lien by one year.
On April 14, 2025, the court entered an order to show cause (OSC) why the court should not issue a turnover order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 708.205, and further ordered other matters to be turned over to Lichtenberger. The OSC noticed a hearing for June 16, 2025.
The OSC hearing was continued on June 16, 2025, to June 30.
On June 26, 2025, Gooch filed a response to the OSC.
On June 30, 2025, the court continued the hearing on the OSC to August 18.
On July 18, 2025, Gooch filed a substitution of attorney with new counsel of C. Matthew Missakian of Hogle & Missakian LLP.
On August 13, 2025, the court continued the hearing on the OSC to September 15.
On August 20, 2025, Gooch filed a substitution of attorney with new counsel of Beatriz P. Flores.
On September 10, 2025, Lichtenberger filed a Judgment Creditor’s Affidavit Regarding the Court’ Order to Show Cause. In this document, Lichtenberger requested that the hearing on the OSC be continued to October 6 because of Gooch’s new counsel. The same document was apparently filed again on September 11, this time with a proof of service.
On September 15, 2025, the court continued the OSC to October 6. Also on September 15, Gooch filed a substitution of attorney by which he was then self-represented.
On October 6, 2025, the court continued the hearing on the OSC to November 17. The court also entered an order extending the personal property lien by one additional year.
On November 17, 2025, the court continued the hearing on the OSC to this hearing date of January 26, 2026.
Nothing further has been filed with respect to the OSC.
Also on this calendar are the debtor examination of Gooch and third-party exams of Ventura Bail Bonds Inc. and Scott J. Esparza & Co Bail Bonds Inc.
Analysis:
“Except as provided in subdivision (b), at the conclusion of a proceeding pursuant to this article, the court may order the judgment debtor’s interest in the property in the possession or under the control of the judgment debtor or the third person or a debt owed by the third person to the judgment debtor to be applied toward the satisfaction of the money judgment if the property is not exempt from enforcement of a money judgment. Such an order creates a lien on the property or debt.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.205, subd. (a).)
“If a third person examined pursuant to Section 708.120 claims an interest in the property adverse to the judgment debtor or denies the debt and the court does not determine the matter as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 708.180, the court may not order the property or debt to be applied toward the satisfaction of the money judgment but may make an order pursuant to subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 708.180 forbidding transfer or payment to the extent authorized by that section.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.205, subd. (b).)
“This article” in section 708.205 refers to article 2 of chapter 6 of division 2 of the Enforcement of Judgments Law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 680.010 et seq. [the Enforcement of Judgments Law or EJL]; id., §§ 708.110-708.205 [article 2].) Article 2 relates to examination proceedings. (E.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 708.110, subd. (a) [“The judgment creditor may apply to the proper court for an order requiring the judgment debtor to appear before the court, or before a referee appointed by the court, at a time and place specified in the order, to furnish information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment.”].)
The turnover order sought by the OSC is for the following property (collectively, the subject property):
“The property in which Judgment Debtor BRIAN GOOCH aka BRIAN LLOYD GOOCH aka BRIAN LLOYD GOOCH dba BIKER BAIL BONDS has an interest to be turned over is:
“1. All accounts receivable owed to Judgment Debtor as of June 14, 2023 and subsequently received by any person;
“2. All contracts and/or agreements as of June 14, 2023 regarding any Bail Bond issued on a payment plan;
“3. All contracts and/or agreements after June 14, 2023 regarding any Bail Bond issued on a payment plan;
“4. All contracts and/or agreements after June 14, 2023 regarding any Bail Bond issued as a result of any telephone call to any telephone number owned by Judgment Debtor;
“5. All telephone numbers, including but not limited to:
“a. (805) 658-0404
“b. (805) 564-0864
“c. (619) 301-4458
“d. (916) 999-1900
“e. (805) 680-0305
“f. (707) 331-1269
“g. (805) 680-9607” (OSC, at pp. 2-3.)
The case of Palacio Del Mar Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. McMahon (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1386 (Palacio) is instructive. In Palacio, the plaintiff obtained a money judgment against the defendant. (Id. at p. 1388.) The plaintiff conducted a judgment debtor examination under section 708.110 and the defendant testified that he has been a provider of interactive computer service under a particular domain name (although the domain name was registered in his wife’s name). (Id. at p. 1389.) The plaintiff moved for an order directing the defendant to turn over possession and control of the domain name. (Ibid.) The court granted the motion and ordered the defendant to transfer rights in the domain name to the plaintiff and further ordered that the domain name be offered for sale upon transfer and the proceeds applied toward the satisfaction of the money judgment. (Ibid.) The defendant appealed. (Ibid.)
The Palacio court reversed, explaining:
“Section 708.205 does not allow the turnover of the domain name directly to Palacio. It authorizes the judgment debtor’s interest in property ‘to be applied toward the satisfaction of the money judgment.’ (§ 708.205, subd. (a).) Cash is easily applied toward satisfying the judgment. Nonmonetary property is not so easily applied. It must be valued and sold. And section 708.205 does not authorize the judgment debtor to value property unilaterally or put it up for public sale.” (Palacio, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 1390.)
“[Palacio’s] primary case holds the judgment debtor’s interest in turned-over property is applied to the judgment by ‘ “order[ing] the person examined ... to deliver property or funds to a levying officer or directly to the judgment creditor.” ’ [Citation.] We parse the disjunctive clauses thusly: A turnover order may direct the examinee to deliver (1) property to a levying officer, and (2) funds directly to the judgment creditor—but not property directly to the judgment creditor.” (Palacio, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 1390.)
“Palacio did not invoke and cannot rely upon the general turnover statute, section 699.040. The statute allows a judgment creditor to seek an order ‘directing the judgment debtor to transfer to the levying officer either or both of the following: [¶] (1) Possession of the property sought to be levied upon if the property is sought to be levied upon by taking it into custody. [¶] (2) Possession of documentary evidence of title to property of or a debt owed to the judgment debtor that is sought to be levied upon.” (§ 699.040, subd. (a), italics added.) It does not allow a turnover to the judgment creditor.” (Palacio, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 1391.) “And section 699.040 limits itself to tangible property that can be ‘levied upon by taking it into custody’ (or tangible, ‘documentary evidence of title’ to property or a debt).” (Ibid.)
Complicating matters, the OSC includes orders “that Judgment Creditor shall serve and file an Affidavit of Facts no later than May 16, 2025 to support issuance of the Turnover Order” and “that Judgment Creditor shall serve this Order along with her Affidavit of Facts upon all interested persons no later than May 16, 2025.” (OSC, at p. 3, l. 26 to p. 4, l. 2.) Lichtenberger did not file any Affidavit of Facts by May 16, 2025; the absence of filing and serving such an Affidavit of Facts was noted in Gooch’s June 26, 2025, response. On September 10, 2025, and again on September 11, Lichtenberger filed a “Judgment Creditor’s Affidavit Regarding the Court’s Order to Show Cause” (Affidavit). This Affidavit states that Lichtenberger forwarded documents to Gooch’s then-counsel Flores, requests a continuance, and states that Lichtenberger had a brief, unresolved conversation with Flores. (Affidavit, ¶¶ 1-6.) The Affidavit contains no facts relevant to the substance of the OSC. No further affidavit was filed containing any evidence in support of the OSC.
As the matter stands, there is no evidence presented that any of the subject property constitutes property that may be the subject of a turnover order under section 708.205, subdivision (a). With the exception of realized accounts receivable in Gooch’s possession or control (i.e., payments of money made to Gooch in satisfaction of an obligation made by a third party), none of the property listed in the OSC appears to be property that could be ordered turned over to Lichtenberger as a judgment creditor rather than the subject of a levy to be turned over to the levying officer for sale or other disposition under appropriate circumstances (to the extent such property could then be sold pursuant to execution). The telephone numbers in particular are problematic because, like the domain name at issue in Palacio, there is no evidence that the numbers are property within the scope of a turnover order under section 708.205. Insofar as the OSC is tied to the examination of Gooch, realized accounts receivables received by someone other than Gooch is problematic where such payments are not within Gooch’s possession or control.
Other orders in the OSC, although all relying upon section 708.205, require the turnover of property that may not exist (e.g., an accounting, list of bail bonds) or do not constitute property that could be applied to the judgment debt (e.g., documentation of status of ownership). Different statutes, not relied upon by Lichtenberger and with other features and limitations, provide for the delivery of documents and written information in aid of execution of judgment (as opposed to property subject to execution sale). (E.g., Code Civ. Proc., §§ 708.020, 708.030.)
The parties will be required to address these issues at the hearing on the OSC.