Case Number: 12K11700    Hearing Date: July 24, 2014    Dept: 82

Broadcast Music Inc.
v.
Flix Entertainment Group LLC d/b/a Cinespace Restaurant

Case No. 12K11700

Tentative Decision Denying Motion for an Order Appointing a Receiver

On November 15, 2012, Judge Jan G. Levine entered judgment in favor of Petitioner Broadcast Music Inc. (“Broadcast”) and against Respondent Flix Entertainment Group LLC d/b/a Cinespace Restaurant’s (“Cinespace”) in the amount of $12,219.81. According to Petitioner, Cinespace has made no attempt to satisfy the November 15, 2012 judgment. Petitioner also claims that it has been unable to satisfy the judgment through a writ of execution issued on May 6, 2013. (Aires Decl., ¶ 3).

Petitioner moves for appointment of a receiver to aid in the enforcement of the judgment entered on November 15, 2012. Specifically, Petitioner seeks appointment of a receiver to aid in the transfer by sale of Respondent’s interest in California Liquor License No. 380374 (the “License”).

After reading and considering the moving papers, the Court renders the following decision:

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 564(b) provides in relevant part:

A receiver may be appointed by the court in which an action or proceeding is pending, or by a judge thereof, in the following cases:

(3) After judgment, to carry the judgment into effect.

Code of Civil Procedure section 708.620 provides that “[t]he court may appoint a receiver to enforce the judgment where the judgment creditor shows that, considering the interests of both the judgment creditor and the judgment debtor, the appointment of a receiver is a reasonable method to obtain the fair and orderly satisfaction of the judgment.”

Since the appointment of a receiver is an equitable remedy, equity’s requirement that there be no adequate remedy at law available applies. Rogers v. Smith, (1946) 76 Cal. App. 2d 16. While the availability of other remedies does not, in and of itself, preclude the use of a receivership, “a trial court must consider the availability and efficacy of other remedies in determining whether to employ the extraordinary remedy of a receivership.” City and County of San Francisco v. Daley, (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 734, 745.

Here, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate an entitlement to the extreme remedy of a receivership to aid in the enforcement of the November 15, 2012 judgment. While Petitioner claims that Respondent Cinespace has failed to satisfy the November 15, 2012 judgment, Petitioner offers no specific evidence demonstrating how Respondent has failed to satisfy the judgment. Although Petitioner caused a writ of execution to be issued on May 6, 2013, Petitioner fails to elaborate on its efforts to enforce that writ over the past year. Further, aside from mentioning the May 6, 2013 writ of execution, Petitioner has produced no other evidence addressing Respondent’s alleged failure to satisfy the judgment or Petitioner’s attempts to enforce the judgment through other means. Finally, although Petitioner seeks the appointment of a receiver to aid in the transfer by sale of Respondent’s interest in the License, the License expired on April 30, 2014. (Exhibit A). As such, there is no basis for the appointment of receiver to aid in the transfer by sale of an expired liquor license.

For these reasons, the motion is denied.