Larson v. Kim CA2/3

Filed 3/18/21 Larson v. Kim CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ANDREW LARSON, B301051

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC460381) v.

MOON KI KIM,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James E. Blancarte, Judge. Dismissed. LimNexus, Lisa Y. Yang, Mark T. Hansen and George T. Busu for Defendant and Appellant. Andrew Larson, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

Moon Ki Kim (Kim) purports to appeal from two orders denying his motions to quash the writ of execution and vacate the underlying affidavit of identity. We dismiss the appeal as the trial court never entered an appealable order. Rather, it entered interim orders to preserve the status quo and indicated it would address the merits of the matter at a future hearing after additional papers and motions were filed. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Daisy Sandoval entered into a stipulated judgment putting an end to her wrongful termination action against the Law Offices of Moon Kim (the law offices). She assigned her judgment to Andrew Larson, dba HCR Beverly Hills (Larson), for collection. Without notice, Larson filed an affidavit of identity declaring that the judgment debtor law offices was also known as Moon Kim, an individual. (See Code Civ. Proc.,1 § 680.135.) Judge Moreton signed the affidavit of identity and ordered that Kim be added in his individual capacity as a judgment debtor to any writ of execution or abstract of judgment. Larson subsequently obtained a writ of execution and the sheriff levied on Kim’s personal bank accounts. Kim moved for a temporary restraining order to prohibit the collection of the judgment against his personal bank accounts. He moved to recall or quash the writ of execution and to vacate the order on the affidavit of identity. Kim argued he was never a party to Sandoval’s lawsuit: He was not a named as