Case Name: Jose Arvizu, et al. v. Patrick Eugene Oliver, et al.
Case No.: 2015-1-CV-284282

Plaintiff brings as a post judgment motion five motions in one: a motion to compel answers to interrogatories; a motion for sanctions; a motion assigning debtor’s right to payment; a motion charging debtor’s interests in limited liability companies; and a motion for award of post-judgment attorney’s fees. This omnibus motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Defendant judgment debtor, who is now self-represented, has filed an opposition which does not directly respond to the substantive law, and is somewhat confusing as it attaches purported responses to requests for admission, when none are at issue in plaintiff’s motions. It appears undisputed that no verified responses to interrogatories have been served.

The motion to compel responses to interrogatories is GRANTED. All objections are waived. Defendant shall serve verified responses which comply with the Code of Civil Procedure within 15 days.

The motions assigning debtor’s right to payment, and charging defendant’s interests in the identified limited liability companies is GRANTED under Code of Civil Procedure sections 708.310 and 708.510.

The motion for post-judgment attorney’s fees is DENIED, without prejudice, under Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040. The Court finds plaintiff has failed to make a sufficient evidentiary showing that the underlying judgment includes an award of attorney’s fees by contract, statute or law; and that plaintiff has not established the fees claimed were reasonably and necessarily incurred in the enforcement of the judgment. This order is without prejudice to a renewed motion on sufficient proof.

All sanctions requested are DENIED, also without prejudice. Plaintiff has not demonstrated a proper legal basis for sanctions, the precise nature and amount of sanctions sought, nor a sufficient factual basis. The Court notes that no amount of attorney’s fees and costs related to the motion to compel answers to interrogatories has been specifically described to enable the court to determine the reasonable expenses associated with this portion of the motion.

In the future, the Court suggests plaintiff consider filing separate notices of motion and motions on discrete subjects or claims for relief, rather than joining multiple motions in a single set of moving papers. Although arguably related to and flowing from the same issue of enforcement of judgment, the nature and requirements of these various motions differ. A motion should ordinarily be limited to a single type of relief sought.