MARSH & MCLENNAN AGENCY LLC VS. ELMER "RICK" FERGUSON

August 3, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 6 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________

02:00 PM 26-CIV-01347 MARSH & MCLENNAN AGENCY LLC VS. ELMER "RICK" FERGUSON LINE 4

MARSH & MCLENNAN AGENCY LLC BENJAMIN A. EMMERT ELMER "RICK" FERGUSON PRO PER

PETITIONER: MARSH & MCLENNAN AGENCY LLC'S MOTION FOR AN UNDERTAKING BY DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1710.50

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Marsh & McLennon Agency, LLC’s (“MMA”) “Motion for an Undertaking by Defendant Pursuant to [CCP] Sect. 1710.50,” filed July 21, 2026, is DENIED pending the outcome of the Nov. 16, 2026 hearing on Judgment Debtor Ferguson’s motion to vacate entry of the judgment.

The Court HEREBY EXTENDS THE STAY OF ENFORCEMENT issued on July 15, 2026 to Nov. 16, 2026.

On Feb. 24, 2026, Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor MMA filed this case to domesticate a July 1, 2025 money judgment in favor of MMA, and against Defendant/Judgment Debtor Ferguson, issued by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On May 18, 2026, Mr. Ferguson filed a motion seeking to vacate entry of the judgment, arguing it was procedurally incorrect to use procedures for domesticating a “sister-state” judgment for a judgment issued by a federal district court. Ferguson’s initial motion Court denied it on procedural grounds. (June 29, 2026 Order.) On July 8, 2026, Ferguson filed a second motion to vacate entry of the judgment, which is set for hearing on Nov. 16, 2026.

On July 15, 2026, the Court granted Mr. Ferguson’s ex parte application to stay enforcement of the judgment until at least Aug. 3, 2026. On July 21, 2026, MMA filed the present motion, seeking an order requiring Mr. Ferguson to post a bond/undertaking, pending resolution of Ferguson’s appeal of the underlying SDNY judgment to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 1710.10 et. seq., the Court has discretion as to whether to require an undertaking. The Court entered the judgment in this case based on a purported “sister-state” judgment, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 1710.10 et. seq. Accordingly, this Motion is governed by Code Civ. Proc. § 1710.50, which grants this Court the discretion to require Mr. Ferguson (the judgment debtor) to post an undertaking pending the resolution of his appeal to the Second Circuit. See § 1710.50(c)(1) (“The court may require an undertaking in an amount it determines to be just ...” [emphasis added].)

MMA’s use of Code Civ. Proc. § 1710.10 et. seq.’s procedures to domesticate a federal court judgment may have been improper. Since the underlying judgment here was issued by a federal court, § 1710.10 et. seq.’s procedures for domesticating “sister-state” judgments may not have been the proper procedural mechanism to domesticate the SDNY judgment. § 1710.10(c) states:

As used in this chapter: ...

August 3, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 7 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ (c) “Sister state judgment” means that part of any judgment, decree, or order of a court of a state of the United States, other than California, which requires the payment of money, but does not include a support order as defined in Section 155 of the Family Code.

LAW REVISION COMMISSION COMMENTS

Subdivision (c) is based on Section 1 of the revised Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act of 1964. 9A Uniform Laws Ann. 488 (1965). However, unlike the Uniform Act which applies to all state and federal judgments entitled to full faith and credit, Section 1710.10(c) applies only to judgments of sister state courts which require the payment of money. ...

(emphasis added.) See also Enforcing Sister State Judgments in California:, Cal. Prac. Guide Enf. J. & Debt Ch. 6J-2, stating:

A sister state judgment cannot be enforced in California until it is ‘domesticated’ (or registered) as a California judgment in accordance with applicable law—generally, pursuant to the Sister State Money-Judgments Act or by bringing an action to establish the judgment in California.

(1) Scope of Act

[6:1802.1] Not applicable to federal court judgments: The SSMJA does not apply to federal court judgments. [See CCP § 1710.10(c) and Comment thereto; compare Richard A. Viguerire Co., Inc. v. Noble (1980) 101 CA3d 62, 64, 161 CR 435, 436—D.C. superior court judgments constitute sister-state judgments entitled to entry in California under SSMJA]

(Instead, nearly all federal court judgments are enforceable by registration in a California federal district; see ¶ 6:1848 ff.)

Mr. Ferguson has filed a (second) motion to vacate this Court’s entry of the “sister-state” judgment, which is set for a hearing on Nov. 16, 2026. The ruling on that motion may impact the merits of requiring an undertaking.

MMA was advised to brief this question (the applicability of the Sister State Money Judgment Act) in the Court’s July 15, 2026 Order but has declined to brief its merits.

MMA has instead argued that Mr. Ferguson missed his statutory deadline to file a motion to vacate, because he did not file his initial Motion to Vacate Entry of Sister-State Judgment (which was denied on procedural grounds) until May 18, 2026. The Rutter Group: Enforcement of Judgments, states:

[6:1830] Vacating the judgment: The judgment debtor has 30 days following service of the notice of entry of judgment to move to vacate the judgment (but equitable relief may be available after this deadline expires). [CCP § 1710.40(b) and Comment thereto; see Casey v. Hill (2022) 79 CA5th 937, 960]

The Court has not yet ruled on this timeliness issue. But it does note that the docket reflects the fact that Mr. Ferguson did attempt to file his motion in a timely manner. He attempted to file the motion on March 23, 2026 but it was rejected for technical reasons, primarily because he did not include a case

August 3, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 8 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ number (his pleading specifically indicated he didn’t know the case number). He attempted to file it again on April 28, 2026 but it was rejected due to a failure to pay a fee.

In exercising its discretion not to require an undertaking at this time, the Court considered that, based on the history and nature of this judgment, that an appeal is unlikely to be successful and that ultimately the judgment is likely going to be enforceable by some procedure. The Court also considered MMA’s concern about Mr. Ferguson “attempt[ing] to conceal or transfer assets”. However, as to that concern, MMA offers no evidence and Mr. Ferguson has lodged with the Court evidence of his current assets with a declaration signed under penalty of perjury. The Court has also considered the policies underlying Code of Civil Procedure Section 917.1 even though it concededly does not apply here. But, ultimately, the Court’s concern regarding MMA’s use of what appears to be an inapplicable procedure to enforce its judgment weighs more heavily against requiring an undertaking at this time.

In light of the foregoing, MMA’s motion for an order requiring Mr. Ferguson to post an undertaking is DENIED, pending the outcome of the Nov. 16, 2026 hearing on Judgment Debtor Ferguson’s motion to vacate entry of the judgment.

The Court HEREBY EXTENDS THE STAY OF ENFORCEMENT issued on July 15, 2026 to Nov. 16, 2026.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept.11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for the plaintiff shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the California Rules of Court. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.