Penson & Company, LLC v. Cloudstyle Store

Background

Penson & Company, LLC filed a renewed motion for an assignment order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(1) and California Code of Civil Procedure section 708.510(a). The requested order would assign to Penson any rights Cloudstyle had to disbursements from the Amazon Payments account associated with seller ID ABVOXG9QD52NV.

The court had denied Penson’s earlier motion on September 27, 2023. It found that Penson’s evidence—a declaration from counsel based on information and belief—did not establish that Cloudstyle had a right to the Amazon Payments account registered to Yun Duan. The court allowed Penson to renew the motion if it could provide evidence that Cloudstyle had a right to the funds in the account.

Evidence and Legal Standard

California law permits a judgment creditor—the party seeking to collect a judgment—to request an assignment of payments due or expected to become due to the judgment debtor. The creditor must provide more than speculation, but only some evidentiary support and some concrete basis showing that the expected payment is required. The creditor must also describe the source of the payment in enough detail for the defendants to seek an exemption or oppose the request.

In support of the renewed motion, Penson submitted emails from Amazon’s counsel stating that all proceeds from Amazon Standard Identification Number B087M49C1M were deposited into the seller account associated with seller ID ABVOXG9QD52NV. The opinion also quoted a statement from Amazon Payments, Inc. saying that the account was held by Hangzhou Yun Duan Import and Export Trade Co., Ltd., which used the business name Cloudstyle, and that the entity held a single account under that seller ID.

Cloudstyle’s Objections

Cloudstyle argued that Penson’s emails were not admissible evidence. The court rejected that argument, explaining that section 708.510 does not require a showing of a right to payment to be made only through admissible evidence. The court found that the emails were sufficient to satisfy the statute’s relatively low evidentiary requirement.

Cloudstyle also argued that it had not been personally served or mailed notice of the motion. The court found that counsel for Cloudstyle and Yun Duan had registered to use the court’s electronic filing system and had entered appearances, which provided actual notice.

Finally, Cloudstyle argued that the court should not grant the motion without first determining the identities of Cloudstyle, Yun Duan, and the Amazon seller account because doing so could deprive Yun Duan of due process—the right to notice and an opportunity to defend itself. The court found that Cloudstyle cited no persuasive authority supporting that argument.

Ruling

The court granted Penson’s renewed motion for an assignment order. The opinion does not state the amount of money involved or describe the underlying judgment in detail.