Newstart Real Estate Investment LLC v. Huang

Filed 7/3/19

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

NEWSTART REAL ESTATE B292417 INVESTMENT LLC, (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. BC502938)

v.

JACK HUANG,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Edward B. Moreton, Judge. Affirmed.

Gary Hollingsworth for Plaintiff and Appellant.

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. _______________________

* Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1100 and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts 1 and 3 of the Discussion.

Plaintiff New Start Real Estate Investment LLC appeals from three postjudgment orders thwarting its attempts to collect on a judgment against defendant Jack Huang, also known as Ming Shan Huang, and imposing sanctions against it. These rulings were based on the trial court’s conclusion there was no enforceable judgment, because the court had granted defendant’s motion for a new trial of punitive damages. Plaintiff contends the part of the judgment awarding compensatory damages was enforceable despite the order granting a new trial of punitive damages. We affirm. BACKGROUND A jury awarded plaintiff $1,620,000 in compensatory damages, and $280,000 in punitive damages in its action against defendant (and others not relevant to this appeal), and judgment was entered in plaintiff’s favor on January 3, 2018. After entry of judgment, defendant successfully moved for a new trial of punitive damages. The court granted defendant’s motion “subject to denial if Plaintiff accepts a reduction to $10,000.” Plaintiff did not accept the court’s proposed reduction of punitive damages to $10,000, and therefore punitive damages were to be retried. No date for retrial was set, however, because plaintiff appealed the order granting a new trial.1 After the court’s ruling on the new trial motion, plaintiff sought to enforce the judgment. On March 14, 2018, plaintiff obtained a writ of execution from the clerk of the superior court for the entire judgment (including the punitive damages award). In May 2018, plaintiff also served subpoenas for production of business records upon several banks at which defendant held