Recent Changes - Search:
Site /

Court Opinions

Opinion Opinions

Recent Court Opinions

U.S. v Huckaby, 2026 WL 587784 (E.D.Cal., March 3, 2026).
♦ The United States sought to enforce a 2018 federal judgment against Robert P. Huckaby for failing to honor IRS levies by reaching real property in South Lake Tahoe, California that Huckaby and Joyce Ann Tritsch bought as joint tenants in 2005 and transferred in 2011 into the Circle H Bar T Trust, a self-settled trust in which they served as settlors, trustees, and lifetime beneficiaries. On the government’s motion for summary judgment, the court applied federal choice-of-law principles and held that, although the trust instrument selected Nevada law for construction, California law governed whether the beneficial interest in California land could be reached by creditors. Applying California Probate Code § 15304 and related authority, the court concluded the Trust’s spendthrift provisions were void against creditors because it was self-settled, so the government’s judgment lien could be enforced against the Property to the extent of Huckaby’s interest. The court further found the undisputed record established Huckaby held both legal title (as trustee) and equitable ownership (as beneficiary) sufficient for the lien to attach. The motion was granted in part: the court declared the judgment lien encumbers Huckaby’s one-half ownership interest and authorized the United States to submit a proposed foreclosure order consistent with a stipulation governing lien priority, but otherwise denied the requested declaratory relief. ♦

Bagby v. Davis, 2026 WL 444616 (Cal.App., Distr. 2, Feb. 17, 2026).
♦ The court affirmed an order denying judgment debtor Joseph D. Davis’s claim of exemption from a levy on two IRAs sought by judgment creditor Douglas A. Bagby to collect on a $5 million default judgment. The court held that California exemption law applies in California enforcement proceedings regardless of the debtor’s residence, rejecting Davis’s argument that Florida exemptions should govern because he had moved to Florida. It also rejected jurisdictional challenges asserting the IRA funds were “located” in South Carolina and that the writ of execution had expired, explaining that account funds are intangible and are deemed located wherever the court has personal jurisdiction over the custodian, and that the cited 180-day statutes did not divest the court of authority (and, in any event, the arguments were forfeited). On the merits, the court concluded Davis failed to carry his burden to prove any exemption under California law. Although funds rolled over from a qualifying private retirement plan can retain full exemption, Davis did not prove the source plan was principally designed and used for retirement purposes, noting his control as trustee and his substantial, unexplained borrowing against the plan’s sole asset (a life insurance policy) with large unpaid interest. The court further held that a voluntarily surrendered life insurance policy should be treated as “matured,” so any exemption depends on showing the proceeds are reasonably necessary for support—something Davis did not show. Because IRAs are exempt only to the extent necessary for support, and Davis presented no supporting evidence (with reported income exceeding $500,000), the levy was permitted; a late-raised tax holdback request was also forfeited. ♦

U.S. v. Link (In re Link), 664 B.R. 832 (N.D.Okla., Nov. 22, 2024).
♦ The U.S. Bankruptcy Court denied a discharge to debtors Louis Tucker Link and Vickie Bocox Link pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3) and (5). Despite their background as sophisticated businesspeople—with Tucker Link being a CPA—the court found that the debtors failed to maintain adequate financial records or file tax returns for the five years preceding their 2021 bankruptcy petition. The Links operated a complex corporate structure involving numerous domestic and foreign entities, which the court characterized as an "elaborate shell game" intended to shroud their financial condition following a 2017 IRS levy. The court rejected the debtors' submission of unorganized bank statements as a "document dump," ruling that such records were insufficient to ascertain their true financial history or reconstruct massive intercompany transfers. Furthermore, the court held that the Links failed to satisfactorily explain the dissipation of their substantial wealth, noting that their reported net worth plummeted from over $20 million in late 2016 to less than $80,000 by the petition date. Specific gaps in documentation regarding the proceeds from the sale of a $2.2 million yacht and an 11,700-acre ranch further supported the court's conclusion. Ultimately, the judge determined that the Links' lack of transparency and failure to account for millions of dollars in lost assets precluded them from the privilege of a bankruptcy discharge. ♦

Cheng v. Gill (In re Cheng), 943 F.2d 1114 (9th Cir., 1991).

McDonnell v. Gilbert (In re Gilbert), 2024 WL 4560542 (3rd Cir., Oct. 24, 2024).
♦ This is an appeal of a bankruptcy court's decision regarding the inclusion of Eric Gilbert's retirement plan assets in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy court, affirmed by the district court, ruled that Gilbert's approximately $1.7 million in retirement funds, held in two defined benefit plans governed by ERISA, were excluded from the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2). This section protects a debtor's interest in a trust with an enforceable anti-alienation provision. The appellate court agreed, holding that ERISA's anti-alienation provision remains in effect even if the plan is operated in violation of ERISA or the Internal Revenue Code. The court rejected the trustee's argument that ERISA's protections are nullified by non-compliance, emphasizing that the text of the Bankruptcy Code and ERISA controls. The court also rejected the trustee's attempts to avoid certain transactions related to the retirement plans (a divorce settlement and transfers from Gilbert's business) as these did not constitute transfers of Gilbert's property under the Bankruptcy Code. Finally, the court upheld the bankruptcy court's decisions regarding the expedited briefing schedule and the exclusion of certain documents from the appellate record, finding no substantial prejudice to the trustee. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety. ♦

Moonbug Entertainment Ltd. v. Babybus (Fujian) Network Tech. Co., 2024 WL 4353044 (N.D.Cal., Sep. 30, 2024).
♦ This order from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants Moonbug Entertainment's motion for an assignment of assets and a restraining order against Babybus (Fujian) Network Tech. Co., Ltd. A jury previously found Babybus liable for copyright infringement of Moonbug's Cocomelon characters, awarding Moonbug over $17 million in damages. Because Babybus failed to pay, Moonbug sought to seize Babybus's assets. The court, applying California law, ordered the assignment of Babybus's rights to payments from various third parties (including YouTube, Apple, Google, Spotify, Amazon, and several Chinese companies) to Moonbug. The court also issued a restraining order preventing Babybus from further assigning these assets to avoid paying the judgment. The court denied the assignment request for some entities due to insufficient evidence of payments owed to Babybus from those sources. ♦

In re Outlaw Laboratory, 2024 WL 3708868 (S.D.Cal., Aug. 7 , 2024).
♦ This is an order which grants in part and denies in part a motion by Collect Co to impose liability on JPMorgan Chase Bank for failing to comply with a writ of execution. Here's a summary of the key points: (1) Background: Collect Co, as assignee of a judgment against Tauler Smith LLP, served a writ of execution on JPMorgan Chase Bank (the Bank) to seize funds in Tauler Smith's account. The Bank failed to promptly deliver the funds, allowing Tauler Smith to withdraw a significant portion. (2) Legal Standard: The court relies on California Code of Civil Procedure § 701.020, which states that a third party holding a debtor's property must deliver it to the levying officer upon receipt of a writ of execution, unless they have good cause for refusal. (3) Bank's Arguments: The Bank argues that the judgment has been satisfied by a settlement agreement between Collect Co and Tauler Smith, and that the court cannot determine liability under § 701.020 through a motion. (4) Court's Findings: The court rejects the Bank's arguments, finding that the settlement agreement does not satisfy the judgment until the conclusion of the current litigation. The court also finds that liability under § 701.020 can be determined through a motion. (5) Liability: The court finds that the Bank's delay of four business days in responding to the writ of execution was unreasonable and imposes liability for the amount withdrawn after the first business day following service, which is $319,178.18. (6) Attorneys' Fees: The court denies Collect Co's request for attorneys' fees, finding that Collect Co failed to carry its burden of demonstrating entitlement to such fees. In essence, the court holds the Bank liable for failing to promptly comply with the writ of execution, but denies Collect Co's request for attorneys' fees. ♦

Dickson v. Mann, 2024 WL 3421751 (Cal.App.Distr. 4, July 16, 2024).
♦ This case involves a law firm, Higgs Fletcher & Mack LLP (HFM), appealing a trial court's decision denying their third-party claim to $585,000 in funds held in their client trust account. The funds were intended as a flat fee for future legal services to be provided to their client, Jack Mann, who was facing a $12 million judgment from Nickolas Dickson. The key issue: Did the funds belong to HFM or Mann? HFM's argument: They claimed ownership of the funds based on the flat fee agreement with Mann, arguing that the funds were "deemed earned" upon receipt. Dickson's argument: He argued that the funds belonged to Mann because they were in HFM's client trust account, and that HFM had not yet earned the fee by providing any legal services. The trial court's ruling: The court rejected HFM's claim, finding that the funds belonged to Mann because: (1) No services were performed: HFM had not provided any legal services under the agreement, meaning the fee was not yet earned. (2) Rules of Professional Conduct: The court relied on rules governing flat fee agreements, which state that unearned fees belong to the client. HFM's motion for reconsideration: HFM argued that they had a lien on a portion of the funds based on a previous agreement with Mann. However, the court denied this motion, finding that HFM had failed to present this argument during the initial hearing and had not provided a satisfactory explanation for their delay. The Court of Appeal's decision: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that HFM's arguments were without merit. The court emphasized that the Rules of Professional Conduct clearly state that flat fees are not earned until services are provided, and that HFM had not presented evidence of any services performed. Key takeaways: (1) The location of funds in a client trust account is not dispositive of ownership. (2) Flat fees are not earned until legal services are provided, even if the agreement states otherwise. (3) Parties must present all relevant arguments and evidence during the initial hearing, as courts may not consider new arguments or evidence during reconsideration. In conclusion: The court upheld the trial court's decision, finding that the funds belonged to Mann because HFM had not yet earned the fee by providing any legal services. The court's decision reinforces the importance of following the Rules of Professional Conduct and presenting all relevant arguments and evidence during the initial hearing. ♦

Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., 603 S.Ct. ____ (June 27, 2024).

Gilbert v. Gilbert, 2024 WL 1472047 (Ky.App., April 5, 2024).

Boxer F2, L.P. v. Bronchick, 2024 WL 1141483 (D.Colo., March 15, 2024).

In re Ponte, 2024 WL 559763 (Bk.N.D.Cal., Feb. 8, 2024).

U.S. v. Le Beau, 2024 WL 347918 (S.D.Cal., Jan. 30, 2024).

Goldberg v. Lawrence (In re Lawrence), 227 B.R. 907 (Bk.S.D.Fla., 1998).

FTC v. Affordable Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir., 1999).

Owens v. Dyken, 2023 WL 4240156 (S.D.Ala., June 28, 2023).

Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, ___ S.Ct. ____ (Feb. 22 2023).

King v. U.S., 2022 WL 2374776 (U.S.Ct.Claims, June 30, 2022).

Coastline JX Holdings LLC v. Bennett, 80 Cal.App.5th 985 (Cal.App. Distr. 4., July 7, 2022).

U.S. v. Shrkreli, 2022 WL 3640279 (2nd Cir., August 24, 2022).

Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, 37 F.4th 562 (9th Cir., June 10, 2022).

In re Marriage of Harnack, 2022 IL App (1st) 210143 (Ill.App.Distr. 1, June 1, 2022).

Bergstrom v. Zions Bancorp., 2022 WL 1419910 (Cal.App. Distr. 2, May 5, 2022).

Collected Court Opinions