Jussila v. AAA Insurance Company

fixtures, or inventory; plus, the value of equipment and fixtures is depressed. (Id., ¶11.) Thus, Plaintiff concludes there is no other option but to appoint a receiver to seize and sell the liquor license to satisfy the judgment. Plaintiff has not made a sufficient factual showing that appointing a receiver to seize and sell the liquor license is necessary. As in Medipro, supra, Plaintiff has only shown that he has encountered some difficulties in his initial efforts to collect the judgment as the Judgment Debtors have not responded to Plaintiff’s letters.

While Plaintiff states in his declaration that he investigated the Judgment Debtors’ finances, there is no explanation regarding the depth of this investigation. This court is not convinced that no bank accounts exist linked to a business that is purportedly still open. Plaintiff’s representations regarding the inadequacy of alternative remedies are not supported by foundation. In addition, it is not clear if the order compelling the Judgment Debtors to respond to Plaintiff’s post-judgment discovery requests was served on the Judgment Debtors.

Mere difficulties in collecting the judgment are insufficient grounds for appointing a receiver. Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proving that a receiver is necessary in this matter. The motion is DENIED. Due to the lack of opposition, the court’s minutes shall constitute the order of the court.

4. 25CV07566, Arshi v. Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART)

Motion withdrawn by moving party.

5. 25CV07912, Jussila v. AAA Insurance Company

Motion withdrawn by moving party.

11