Motion to appoint receiver
of action for wrongful termination is GRANTED. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and motion for summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for failure to accommodate, sixth cause of action for failure to engage in the interactive process, and request for punitive damages is DENIED. Defendant’s counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.
3. 24CV06530, Looney v. 2211 Club LLC
Plaintiff Gary E. Looney dba Collectronics of California (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order appointing Landon McPherson as receiver to take possession of and, if necessary, sell the liquor license of 2211 Club, LLC, in order to carry out the judgment entered in this case in the amount of $4,118.10.
Specific statutory procedures are established for enforcement of money judgments. This includes the appointment of a receiver after judgment to carry the judgment into effect. (CCP section 564(b)(3).) The judgment debtor's interest in an alcoholic beverage license may be applied to the satisfaction of a money judgment. (CCP § 708.630(a).)
A trial court must consider the availability and efficacy of other remedies in determining whether to employ the extraordinary remedy of a receivership. (City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Daley (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 734, 745.) In making this decision, the court must depend upon competent and admissible evidence submitted by the parties, and not conclusions and hearsay. (McCaslin v. Kenney (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 87, 94.) “California rigidly adheres to the principle that the power to appoint a receiver is a delicate one which is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.” (Morand v. Superior Ct. (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 347, 351
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Mere difficulty in trying to collect a debt is not sufficient basis for the court to appoint a receiver. (Medipro Medical Staffing LLC v. Certified Nursing Registry, Inc. (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 622, 628-629.) The Medipro Court explained, “Medipro’s evidentiary showing demonstrated that it had, at most, encountered some difficulty in its initial efforts to collect on its money judgment. If this was sufficient to constitute the ‘necessity’ required to justify the ‘extraordinary’ remedy of the appointment of a receiver to take over a judgment debtor's business, it is difficult to see how the appointment of receivers would not become a routine part of the collection of judgments—a result at odds with the solid wall of precedent holding to the contrary.”
On January 13, 2025, judgment was entered in this action for the above stated amount against 2211 Club, LLC and Dan Karnicki, individually as personal guarantor (“Judgment Debtors”). Plaintiff states he has attempted to collect on the judgment by attempting to locate a bank or deposit account, mailing a letter requesting payment, serving post-judgment interrogatories and requests for production of documents, and mailing a letter requesting responses to the postjudgment discovery. (Looney decl., ¶¶6-10.)
On March 20, 2026, this court granted Plaintiff’s request to compel Judgment Debtors to provide responses to Plaintiff’s post-judgment discovery requests. Plaintiff’s declaration stating that order was served on October 30, 2025, is clearly erroneous, as it would have taken place prior to the motion and entry of judgment. (Id., at ¶12.) Judgment Debtors’ business is open and located at 2211 Polk Street in San Francisco. (Id., at ¶4.)
According to Plaintiff, the sheriff’s office will not sell liquor inventory; the installation of a sheriff’s keeper is ineffective; the size of the judgment makes it impractical to levy upon equipment, 10 fixtures, or inventory; plus, the value of equipment and fixtures is depressed. (Id., ¶11.) Thus, Plaintiff concludes there is no other option but to appoint a receiver to seize and sell the liquor license to satisfy the judgment.
Plaintiff has not made a sufficient factual showing that appointing a receiver to seize and sell the liquor license is necessary. As in Medipro, supra, Plaintiff has only shown that he has encountered some difficulties in his initial efforts to collect the judgment as the Judgment Debtors have not responded to Plaintiff’s letters. While Plaintiff states in his declaration that he investigated the Judgment Debtors’ finances, there is no explanation regarding the depth of this investigation. This court is not convinced that no bank accounts exist linked to a business that is purportedly still open. Plaintiff’s representations regarding the inadequacy of alternative remedies are not supported by foundation. In addition, it is not clear if the order compelling the Judgment Debtors to respond to Plaintiff’s post-judgment discovery requests was served on the Judgment Debtors.
Mere difficulties in collecting the judgment are insufficient grounds for appointing a receiver. Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proving that a receiver is necessary in this matter. The motion is DENIED. Due to the lack of opposition, the court’s minutes shall constitute the order of the court.
4. 25CV07566, Arshi v. Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART)
Motion withdrawn by moving party.
5. 25CV07912, Jussila v. AAA Insurance Company
Motion withdrawn by moving party.
11