MOTION FOR TURNOVER ORDER
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230
DATE: 07/31/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 21CV376210 Weichiao Ku et al. MOTION FOR TURNOVER ORDER vs Harald Herchen Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 1 LINE 2 24CV431226 Kimberly Chaffee MOTION TO COMPEL vs Nimisha Garg et al. Parties are ordered to appear personally in court.
LINE 3 24CV443503 Linda Dashiell MOTION TO COMPEL vs Louie Goros Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 3 LINES 4-6 24CV449460 Anthony Alaimo DEMURRER (x2) and MOTION TO STRIKE vs Rosa Pineda et al Demurrers (x2) to the FAC are Unopposed and Sustained Without Leave to Amend [court previously sustained demurrer to complaint with leave to amend where no opposition was filed by Plaintiff]; Motion to Strike rendered Moot by sustaining of demurrers; Notice of Non-Opposition filed by defendant Rosa Pineda regarding Demurrer and Motion to Strike, filed 7/24/26
LINE 7 24CV452135 Bryana Manchester MOTION: SUMMARY ADJUDICATION vs American Honda Motor Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 7 Company, Inc. et al LINE 8 25CV459782 Amrit Singh MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES vs Ford Motor Company, Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 8 a Delaware Corporation
Calendar Line 1 Case Name: Ku and Kuo vs. Harald Herchen Case No.: 21CV376210
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TURNOVER ORDER
Plaintiffs, as judgment creditors, move for a turnover order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 699.040, 708.120(c), and 708.205(a), seeking an order directing Attorney Charles Smith, counsel for Defendant in a pending criminal proceeding, to apply funds held in his client trust account toward satisfaction of Plaintiffs’ judgment.
The motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Background and Applicable Law
Plaintiffs obtained a judgment against Defendant in a wrongful death action in the approximate amount of $23 million. Plaintiffs seek enforcement against funds allegedly held by Attorney Charles J. Smith (“Mr. Smith”) on behalf of Defendant.
The Enforcement of Judgments Law provides judgment creditors with broad remedies to reach property of a judgment debtor. A court may order a third person who possesses or controls property in which the judgment debtor has an interest to apply that property toward satisfaction of the judgment. (
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 relevant inquiry is whether Defendant presently has an interest in the funds and whether any legal basis exists preventing their application toward satisfaction of the judgment.
Funds Held in Attorney Trust Account
Mr. Smith does not dispute that he presently holds approximately $200,000 in his client trust account belonging to Defendant. Mr. Smith does not assert that these funds are his property, does not claim that the funds constitute earned attorney fees, and does not assert an attorney lien or other ownership interest in the funds. Rather, Mr. Smith declares that, as an officer of the court, he agreed not to remove, transfer, disburse, or use the $200,000 and has honored that commitment. Mr. Smith further states that he has not and will not make a unilateral decision to draw upon the funds to finance Defendant’s criminal defense but seeks to preserve the ability to request court approval to do so if necessary.
Based on this record, the Court finds that Defendant retains an ownership interest in the $200,000 and that the funds are within the scope of property subject to judgment enforcement.
Sixth Amendment Considerations
The Court has carefully considered Defendant’s argument that turnover would impair his constitutional right to counsel, including his reliance on Luis v. United States (2016) 578 U.S. 5, People v. Byoune (1966) 65 Cal.2d 345, and People v. Crovedi (1966) 65 Cal.2d 199.
The Court recognizes the fundamental importance of the right to counsel and, where applicable, the ability of a criminal defendant to retain counsel of choice. The Court also recognizes that Defendant has an upcoming preliminary examination on August 24, 2026 in the pending criminal matter.
However, the authorities cited do not establish that a criminal defendant’s assets are categorically exempt from lawful enforcement of a final civil judgment merely because the defendant may wish to reserve those assets for future criminal defense expenses. Luis involved the pretrial restraint of assets by the government in circumstances where the defendant sought to use those assets to retain counsel. It did not establish that all assets belonging to a judgment debtor are insulated from competing claims by civil judgment creditors.
The Court therefore declines to find that the Sixth Amendment, standing alone, prevents enforcement against funds that are otherwise subject to execution under California law.
At the same time, the Court is mindful of the significant practical consequences of depriving Defendant of access to funds that may be necessary for his defense in a pending criminal proceeding. The Court therefore concludes that a brief opportunity for Defendant to seek appropriate relief is warranted before the funds are released.
Alleged Additional $175,000
Plaintiffs also contend that Mr. Smith previously represented that he possessed an additional approximately $175,000 in funds associated with Defendant’s bail. Mr. Smith disputes that assertion and contends Plaintiffs’ evidence is speculative and inadmissible hearsay.
The Court need not resolve the evidentiary objection because Plaintiffs have not established on the present record that Mr. Smith presently possesses or controls those funds, that the funds remain in existence, or that Defendant presently has an interest in funds subject to turnover.
Accordingly, turnover is denied without prejudice as to the alleged additional $175,000.
Order
Accordingly:
1. The motion is GRANTED as to the approximately $200,000 held by Mr. Smith in his client trust account, subject to the following: 2. a. The turnover order shall be stayed for 30 days from entry of this order.
b. During that period, Defendant may seek appropriate relief by noticed motion if Defendant contends that turnover of some or all of the funds would materially impair his constitutional right to counsel in the pending criminal matter.
3. The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the additional approximately $175,000 referenced by Plaintiffs.
4. Mr. Smith shall maintain the funds subject to this order and shall not remove, transfer, disburse, or otherwise dissipate those funds except pursuant to further order of this Court.
The Court emphasizes that this ruling does not determine whether Defendant may ultimately demonstrate that some portion of the funds should be preserved for purposes of his criminal defense. Rather, the Court concludes only that, on the present record, Defendant has not established a legal exemption from judgment enforcement sufficient to prevent Plaintiffs from pursuing otherwise available post-judgment remedies.
Plaintiff to prepare the final proposed order, accompanied for Form EFS-020, within 7 days of the hearing.
- oo0oo -