Motion for Sanctions; Motion to Make Chase Bank, NA Jointly and Severally Liable; Motion to Compel Code-Compliant Responses to Bank Levy
Insurance Company 2026-01563452 10. City of Placentia vs. The Testate and Intestate Successors of H. Michael Ford, Deceased, and Lynn D. Ford, Deceased 2025-01502207
Before the court is the continued hearing on the petition for order to abate substandard building and appointment of a receiver filed by petitioner City of Placentia (Petitioner) against respondent Barry Rae, Solely in his Capacity as The Special Administrator of the Estate of Lynn D. Ford (Respondent).
On October 22, 2025, the parties filed a Compliance Stipulation and Order to Continue Hearing on Receivership Petition, which was approved by the court (Stipulated Order). Pursuant to the Stipulated Order, Respondent agreed to rehabilitate the subject property and bring it into full compliance, and the parties agreed to continue the hearing on the petition. (ROA 25.)
The court has reviewed the most recent declarations filed by the parties, including the Declaration of Code Enforcement Supervisor Daniel Pivaroff, filed and July 10, 2026, and the Declaration of Barry Rae filed on July 16, 2026. The City continues to express its concern that progress on the property has been slow. Respondent identified specific improvements that have been made to the interior and exterior of the property, and identified items left to be completed. Respondent explains that delays were due to scheduling issues and shortages in the construction industry.
Counsel for all parties are ordered to appear for the hearing to further discuss the progress on the rehabilitation of the property and whether more time is warranted or whether it is appropriate to appoint a receive to finish the rehabilitation work. Remote appearances are acceptable.
11. Stewart vs. Three Phase Electric, Inc. 2022-01248530
Before the court is the “Motion for Sanctions of $20,000 Against Chase Bank; Motion to Make Chase Bank, NA Jointly and Severally Liable for Debtor Three Phase Electric, Inc. Et. Al, Debt as Regards Creditor Wallace Stewart, Et. Al Under California Civil Code 701.020 and 701.030; Motion to Compel Code-Compliant Responses to Bank Levy” filed by “Plaintiff.”
There are two plaintiffs and judgment creditors in this matter—i.e., Wallace Stewart and Desert Property Light Maintenance, Inc. (collectively, Plaintiffs)—but the notice of motion fails to identify which plaintiff is bringing this motion. As more fully set forth below, the motion is DENIED.
This motion arises out Plaintiffs’ efforts to enforce a default judgment they obtained against defendants and judgment debtors “Three Phase Electric, Inc., a California Corporation, and Kimberly Weiss, individually and as an officer of Three Phase Electric, Inc., a California Corporation” on March 17, 2023. Specifically, relating to a writ of execution Plaintiffs served on Chase Bank.
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?”
On June 4, 2026, however, the court granted the motion of defendants and judgment debtors Three Phase Electric, Inc. and Kimberly Weiss (collectively, Defendants) to vacate and set aside both the default and default judgment entered in this case against Defendants. Given there is no longer any judgment to enforce, the court finds the motion MOOT and therefore DENIES the motion.
The court further notes Plaintiffs purport to bring this motion under Civil Code section 701.020 and 701.030. There are no such code sections. Presumably, Plaintiffs intended to refer to Code of Civil Procedure sections 701.020 and 701.030.
Section 701.020 authorizes the court to hold a third party liable for failing to deliver property to a levying officer without good cause. Here, however, there is no showing Chase failed to deliver any property without good cause or at all. The only showing relates to purported deficiencies in the garnishee’s memorandum.
Section 701.030 grants the court discretion to require a garnishee who does not provide a garnishee’s memorandum liable for certain attorney fees and costs; it does not allow the garnishee to be held liable for the underlying judgment. Here, Chase Bank provided a garnishee’s memorandum, it just failed to execute it under oath. Plaintiffs have failed to establish a basis for holding Chase liable for the underlying judgment or for the court to exercise its discretion to impose fees and costs against Chase. Accordingly, the motion also is DENIED on this ground.
Finally, although not included in the notice of motion, the motion seeks $20,000 in sanctions against Three Phase Electric, Inc. (See Motion at p. 8.) This request also is DENIED because proper notice was not provided.
Based on the foregoing, the motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.