Motion for Charging Order
(34)
Tentative Ruling
Re: Seaberg v. Specific Properties, LLC, et al. Superior Court Case No. 20CECG00012
Hearing Date: June 23, 2026 (Dept. 501)
Motion: by Defendants’ for Charging Order
Tentative Ruling:
To grant defendants’ Robert E. Ellis, Stephen D. Long and John S. Foggy’s motion for a charging order against plaintiff/cross-defendant Jeffrey Seaberg’s interest in Seaberg Construction, LLC. (Code Civ. Proc. § 708.310; Corp. Code § 17705.03.)
Explanation:
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 708.310, “If a money judgment is rendered against a partner or member but not against the partnership or limited liability company, the judgment debtor's interest in the partnership or limited liability company may be applied toward the satisfaction of the judgment by an order charging the judgment debtor's interest pursuant to Section 15907.03, 16504, or 17705.03 of the Corporations Code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.310.)
In addition, under Corporations Code section 17705.03, “On application by a judgment creditor of a member or transferee, a court may enter a charging order against the transferable interest of the judgment debtor for the unsatisfied amount of the judgment. A charging order constitutes a lien on a judgment debtor's transferable interest and requires the limited liability company to pay over to the person to which the charging order was issued any distribution that would otherwise be paid to the judgment debtor.” (Corp. Code, § 17705.03, subd. (a).)
Here, Jeffrey Seaberg together with John S. Foggy and Robert E. Ellis formed Specific Properties, LLC. Seaberg has received a money judgment against him in favor of Foggy, Ellis, and Long in the amount of $627,046.31 with 10% interest accrual rate per annum. (Cuttone Decl., ¶ 2; RJN, Ex. 1.)
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?”
The judgment includes an award of costs to Foggy, Ellis, and Long in the amount of $56,714.19 as prevailing parties on the Seaberg’s derivative complaint. (Long Decl., ¶ 4; Ellis Decl., ¶4; Cuttone Decl., ¶ 2, RJN, Ex. 1.)
Seaberg does not dispute that the judgment is unpaid and defendants and crosscomplainants are entitled to an order charging Seaberg’s interest in Specific Properties, LLC. Seaberg raises several errors in the proposed order and indicated the proposed order fails to account for the pending appeal of the costs award portion of the judgment.
In reply, defendants submit an amended proposed charging order incorporating the corrections proposed by Seaberg. With respect to the pending appeal, Seaberg has not given an undertaking to stay enforcement of the money judgment while the appeal is pending. (Code Civ. Proc., § 917.1, subd. (a)(1).) Moreover, defendants have demonstrated there is no risk of overpayment in the event the award of costs is reversed. (Ellis Reply Decl., ¶ 4.) 5
Accordingly, the court intends to grant the motion and sign the amended proposed charging order filed May 12, 2026.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: KCK on 06/22/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
6