Cadles of W.Va. v. Alvarez

1

CADLES OF WEST VIRGINIA, LLC, Plaintiff, v. MARIO ALVAREZ, et al., Defendants.

No. 20-CV-2534 TWR (WVG)

United States District Court, S.D. California

June 29, 2023

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (2) DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT WRIT OF ATTACHMENT AND (4) DISMISSING SUA SPONTE DOE AND ROE DEFENDANTS (ECF NOS. 86, 92, 97)

HONORABLE TODD W. ROBINSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presently before the Court are the Parties' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 92, “Pl.'s MSJ” & ECF No. 97, “Defs.' MSJ”) and Plaintiff's Motion for Prejudgment Writ of Attachment (ECF No. 86 “Att. Mot.”). All Motions are opposed and have been fully briefed according to the schedule set forth by the Court. (See ECF Nos. 92, 94, 95, 97, 103-108.) On May 4, 2023, the Court held a hearing and took the Motions under submission. (See ECF No. 109; see also ECF No. 115, “Mot. Tr.”) Having carefully considered the Parties' arguments, the record, and the relevant law, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. As for the remaining claims, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Prejudgment Writ of Attachment.

BACKGROUND^[1]

This action arises from a dispute regarding the collection of an underlying Judgment entered by the Honorable John A. Houston against Defendant Mario Alvarez (“Mario”) on November 21, 2011. See Judgment Against Mario Alvarez and California Cove at San Elijo, LLC, AmT CADC Venture, LLC v. Alvarez, et al., No. 3:09-CV-02787-JAH-MDD (S.D. Cal. filed Nov. 11, 2011) (“Judgment Litigation”), ECF No. 124.^[2] Judge Houston entered judgment in the amount of $24,620,188.41 due by November 18, 2011, with interest accruing at a daily rate of $5,192.30 thereafter. See Id. Mario stipulated to this Judgment, (see ECF No. 107, “Jt. Stmt.” at 4),^[3] and the case was subsequently closed, see Judgment and Dismissal, Judgment Litigation (S.D. Cal. filed Sept. 25, 2012), ECF No. 129.

The case was later reopened on January 18, 2017, when Plaintiff Cadles of West Virginia, LLC filed a Notice of Assignment of Judgment informing the Court that ownership of and interest in the Judgment had been assigned and transferred to Cadles of West Virginia, LLC. See Notice of Acknowledgment of Assignment of Judgment, Judgment Litigation (S.D. Cal. filed Jan. 18, 2017), ECF No. 130. The Clerk of Court renewed Plaintiff's Judgment on August 26, 2021. See Renewal of Judgment, Judgment Litigation (S.D. Cal. filed Aug. 26, 2021), ECF No. 141. Plaintiff and its predecessor in interest have domesticated this Judgment in Delaware, Florida, and Hawaii. See generally, Cadles of W.Va., LLC v. Alvarez, et al., No. 1:19-MC-00360-CFC (D. Del. 2019); Amt. CADC Venture, LLC v. Alvarez, et al., No. 1:17-MC-20988-FAM (S.D. Fla. 2017); AmT CADC Venture, LLC v. Alvarez, et al., No. 1:17-MC-00070-DKW-RLP (D. Haw. 2017). Although Plaintiff has attempted to collect the Judgment, it remains unsatisfied, (see ECF No. 1, “Compl.” at 9), as, according to Defense counsel, Mario is “judgment proof” (see Mot. Tr. at 33:9-12).

Plaintiff initiated the instant action against Defendants on December 31, 2020, bringing various claims against Mario and the following co-Defendants: George Alvarez, Magali Alvarez, Darci Alvarez, and Nicholas Alvarez (collectively, “Mario's Family”); Balesia Towers, Inc. (“Balesia”), the 16919 Going My Way Trust (the “16919 Trust”), the Alvarez & Alvarez Irrevocable Trust Dated January 31, 2001 (the “Alvarez Trust”), Kona Beach Bungalows, LLC (“Kona”), and the Mario R. Alvarez Sr. Cancer Foundation (the “Cancer Foundation”) (collectively, the “Defendant Entities”); and Does I through X and Roe Corporations XI through XX (collectively, the “Doe and Roe Defendants”). (See generally Compl.) As for Mario's Family, all Parties agree that Defendants' relations are as follows: George is Mario's brother, Magali is his mother, Darci is his wife, and Nicholas is his son. (See generally Jt. Stmt.) Plaintiff brings four claims against Defendants: (1) fraudulent transfer and/or fraudulent concealment (against all Defendants); (2) conspiracy to commit fraudulent transfer and/or concealment (against all Defendants); (3) constructive trust (against Defendant Entities); and (4) declaratory relief/alter ego (against all Defendants). (See generally Compl.)

After several challenges to Plaintiff's service of the Summons and Complaint, Defendants answered, and the Parties proceeded to discovery in early 2022. (See generally Docket.) After completing discovery in February 2023, (see ECF No. 62), the Parties filed the instant Motions, (see generally Docket). Specifically, on February 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Prejudgment Writ of Attachment, (see Att. Mot.), which Defendants opposed, (see ECF No. 103, “Att. Opp.”), and Plaintiff supported with a Reply, (see ECF No. 108). Additionally, on March 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, (see Pl.'s MSJ), and on March 23, 2023, Defendants filed a consolidated Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion, (see Defs.' MSJ). Plaintiff opposed Defendants' Motion, (see ECF No. 105), and both Parties filed Replies in support of their respective Motions, (see ECF Nos. 104, 106). On April 20, 2023, the Parties filed their Joint Statement of Facts. (See Jt. Stmt.) After receiving and reviewing the Parties' filings, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Prejudgment Writ of Attachment and the Parties' respective Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment on May 4, 2023. (See ECF No. 109; Mot. Tr.) At the hearing, the Court permitted Plaintiff to supplement the record with two additional Exhibits, (Mot. Tr. at 39:2-9), which Plaintiff did on May 5, 2023, (see ECF No. 110).

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, a party may move for summary judgment as to a claim or defense or part of a claim or defense. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Summary judgment is appropriate where “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Although materiality is determined by substantive law, “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit . . . will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, (1986). A dispute is “genuine” only “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. When considering the evidence presented by the parties, “[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255.

Where, as here, the parties have filed cross-motions, the court considers each motion “separately, giving the nonmoving party in each instance the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” See SEC v. Feng, 935 F.3d 721, 728 (9th Cir. 2019). The Court must “consider the appropriate evidentiary material identified and submitted in support of both motions, and in opposition to both motions, before ruling on each of them.” Tulalip Tribes of Wash. v. Washington, 783 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2015). As for each motion, the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact falls on the moving party. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The moving party may meet this burden by “identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. (internal quotations omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Moreover, “[w]hen the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, ‘it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial.'” C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Houghton v. South, 965 F.2d 1532, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992)).

Once the moving party satisfies this initial burden, the nonmoving party must identify specific facts showing that there is a genuine dispute or show how the materials cited by the opposing party fail to establish the absence of a genuine dispute. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). This requires “more than simply show[ing] that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Rather, to survive summary judgment, the nonmoving party must “go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts” that would allow a reasonable fact finder to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324 (internal quotations omitted); see also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A nonmoving party cannot oppose a properly supported summary judgment motion by “rest[ing] upon mere allegations or denials of his pleading.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256.

II. Motion for Prejudgment Writ of Attachment

“A writ of attachment allows a plaintiff, in certain prescribed instances, to obtain a pre-trial seizure of the property of a defendant-debtor.” Whitehouse v. Six Corp., 40 Cal.App.4th 527, 532 (1995) (citing Randone v. App Dep't, 5 Cal.3d 536, 543 (1971)). The purpose of prejudgment attachment is to “aid in the collection of...