Tashjian v. Invictus Residential Pooler - 2A
- Edward Davila
- 5:19-cv-01536
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Tashjian v. Invictus Residential Pooler - 2A, Judge Davila denied without prejudice a request to distribute settlement money because required notice procedures were not followed.
Vahe Tashjian, his counsel, Bell Investment Partners, LLC, and Charles Mousseau. The motion was denied without prejudice, so the request may be refiled after compliance with the statutory requirements.
What happened
In Tashjian v. Invictus Residential Pooler - 2A, Vahe Tashjian sought to distribute a $20,000 settlement to his lawyer after reaching an agreement with Newrez, Invictus, and Specialized Loan Servicing LLC. Bell Investment Partners, LLC and Charles Mousseau had filed judgment liens in the case.
The court treated the request as one to approve the settlement under California law. It found no proof that the motion had been served on the lienholders personally or by mail, as the law requires. The court also noted the statute’s provision for a hearing and said it was not deciding whether the lawyer’s lien had priority.
Judge Edward J. Davila denied the motion without prejudice, allowing Tashjian to refile it in compliance with the statutory requirements.
The detailed version
- Tashjian v. Invictus Residential Pooler - 2A · No. 5:19-cv-01536
- Edward Davila
- Nov. 27, 2023
Background
Vahe Tashjian moved under California Code of Civil Procedure § 708.440(b) for an order disbursing settlement proceeds to his counsel. He had reportedly settled with Newrez, Invictus, and Specialized Loan Servicing LLC for a $20,000 cash payment to a Shapero Law Firm client trust account.
Two judgment creditors had appeared in the case. Bell Investment Partners, LLC filed a notice of judgment lien for $2,286,372.40, and Charles Mousseau filed a notice of judgment lien for $1,693,519.62. Tashjian’s counsel argued that the firm’s attorney’s lien had priority over the judgment creditors’ claims. Counsel reported attempting to contact the creditors’ lawyers, but neither creditor filed an opposition to the motion.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 generally requires federal courts to follow the execution procedures of the state where the court is located, unless a federal statute applies. Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 708.440, a judgment debtor may not enter into a settlement of a pending action after proper notice of a judgment lien unless the judgment creditor gives written consent or the court authorizes the settlement by order. Section 708.440(b) requires the motion to be served on the judgment creditor personally or by mail and permits the court, in its discretion, to issue an order after a hearing.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the motion was more accurately treated as a request for settlement approval rather than merely a request to disburse funds. It held that Tashjian needed to obtain the judgment creditors’ consent or court approval before settling the claims.
The court found that Tashjian had not satisfied the statute’s express procedural requirements. The record contained no proof that the motion had been served on either judgment creditor personally or by mail. Electronic filing notices, even if received, would not satisfy the statute’s specified service methods. The court also noted that Tashjian’s motion stated there would be no oral argument unless the court ordered it, while the statute provides for an order after a hearing.
The court rejected the argument that public-policy, equitable, or lien-priority considerations cured those procedural deficiencies. It expressly stated that the order did not decide the merits of a procedurally proper motion or the priority of the liens.
Disposition
The court denied the Motion for Order to Disburse Settlement Proceeds without prejudice to refiling in compliance with the applicable statutory provisions.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.