Skip to main content
Skip to main content.

PUBLIC NOTICE Reduced Hours of Operation – Clerk’s Offices

From December 22, 2025 – January 2, 2026, The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara, will reduce phone hours and the public access operating hours of the Clerk’s Offices. For more information, click here.

Notice:

The court is aware of fraudulent messages and scams being sent to the public. For more information please click here.

David McKay vs Hopp Technologies

Case Number

23CV00809

Case Type

Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 08/08/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion

Tentative Ruling

On February 3, 2025, the court entered a default judgment in favor of plaintiff David McKay and against defendant Hopp Technologies, Inc., in the total amount of $371,185.05. On April 21, 2025, judgment creditor McKay filed this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 699.040 for an order requiring the judgment debtor to turn over to the judgment creditor source code, access and other credentials, and passwords to software developed, owned, or used by the judgment creditor. No opposition or other response to this motion has been filed.

“If a writ of execution is issued, the judgment creditor may apply to the court ex parte, or on noticed motion if the court so directs or a court rule so requires, for 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. An order pursuant to this paragraph may be served when the property or debt is levied upon or thereafter.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 699.040, subd. (a).)

“The court may issue an order pursuant to this section upon a showing of need for the order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 699.040, subd. (b).)

An order seeking turnover of this same type of property was addressed and rejected in Palacio Del Mar Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. McMahon (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1386 (Palacio). Among other things, the Palacio court noted that section 699.040 does not permit an order requiring property to be turned over to the judgment creditor, but only to a levying officer. (Id. at p. 1391.) The motion is therefore denied.

Was this helpful?

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.