People of the State of California v. Ryan Peacock, Inc., et al.

People of the State of California v. Ryan Peacock, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Judgment

Hearing Date: June 12, 2026

The unopposed motion of the People of the State of California (“Plaintiff”) for an order enforcing the Stipulated Judgment filed on June 26, 2023, between it and Defendants Ryan Peacock, Inc. and Ryan Michael Peacock (collectively, “Defendants”) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall submit a Proposed Amended Judgment to show that $75,000, which is the balance of the penalties, is now due.

Terms of the Stipulated Judgment.

On May 31, 2023, the parties agreed to a final judgment, which was approved and filed by this Court on June 26, 2023, as the signed Stipulated Judgment. This judgment prohibits Defendants from violating Monterey Bay Area Resource District Rule 200, as well as sections 2453, 2458, and 93116.3 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. [Stipulated Judgment, Exh. A to Haag Decl. at ¶ 2, subds. (a)-(d).] The parties agreed that Defendants would pay $175,000, with $100,000 paid in installments under the judgment. [Id. at ¶ 3.]

If no violations occur for five years, the remaining $75,000 will be dismissed. [Id. at ¶¶ 3, 6, and 9.] If there is a suspected violation, the parties must follow procedures including written notice of the alleged violation, a 10-day meet-and-confer period, court briefing, and a court ruling before the remaining amount is due. [Id. at ¶ 7.] The Court also agreed to retain jurisdiction over the case. [Id. at ¶ 8.]

Discussion.

A court of equity can enforce its decrees within the same scope as its authority to determine the parties’ rights. [Day v. Sharp (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 904, 912.] Unless the decree is self-executing, the court’s jurisdiction over the case remains to facilitate enforcement. [Ibid.] “It follows that retention of jurisdiction by the court for the purpose of interpreting and enforcing its judgment is within the scope of declaratory relief.” [Stump’s Market, Inc. v. Plaza de Santa Fe Limited, LLC (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 882, 890 (internal quotes and citations).] Jurisdiction “over a cause or parties after a final judgment, order, or decree is exceptional and limited to special situations.” [Ibid.]

Here, the Stipulated Judgment states that this Court retains jurisdiction to issue additional orders or directions needed to enforce it. [Stipulated Judgment, Exh. A to Haag Decl. at ¶ 8.] Plaintiff has demonstrated that they fulfilled the meet and confer requirement and provided evidence of Defendants’ failure to comply with the injunctive relief. [Haag Decl. at ¶¶ 7-14;

Hamaguchi Decl. at ¶¶ 1-13.] In fact, Plaintiff has presented evidence indicating that Mr. Peacock was aware of, understood, agreed to, and knowingly did not comply with the injunctive provisions of the Stipulated Judgment. [Haag Decl. at ¶¶ 9-13.] Because Plaintiff complied with the requirements of the Stipulated Judgment and Defendants have not shown anything to the contrary, the motion is GRANTED.

Conclusion.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The Stipulated Judgment shall be so amended to show that Defendants now owe the balance of the penalties ($75,000). Plaintiff shall submit a Proposed Order and a Proposed Amended Judgment consistent with this Tentative Ruling.

2