Da-Green Electronics, Ltd., a New Jersey Corporation v. Bank of Yorba Linda, a California Corporation

Good Law
891 F.2d 1396·1989 WL 148283·1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 18645
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 11, 198988-6352California5,448 words

Opinion

Opinion

891 F.2d 1396 DA-GREEN ELECTRONICS, LTD., a New Jersey Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BANK OF YORBA LINDA, a California Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. No. 88-6352. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 5, 1989. Decided Dec. 11, 1989. Steven N. Richman, Epport & Kaseff, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Joseph Liebman, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before FLETCHER, NELSON and NORRIS, Circuit Judges. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: 1 Appellant Bank of Yorba Linda ("the Bank") appeals the judgment in favor of Da-Green Electronics, Inc. ("Da-Green"), holding the Bank liable for failure to honor a writ of execution served in an effort to levy on an account of one of the Bank's depositors. We affirm.FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW 2 For a period of five years prior to initiation of this lawsuit, Da-Green, a New Jersey Corporation, sold merchandise to an entity representing itself as Sun Electronics Distribution, Inc. ("Sun"). Da-Green forwarded merchandise to Sun, and then received payment by check drawn on an account maintained at the Bank. "Sun…

lead Opinion

Fletcher, J.

Appellant Bank of Yorba Linda (“the Bank”) appeals the judgment in favor of Da-Green Electronics, Inc. (“Da-Green”), holding the Bank liable for failure to honor a writ of execution served in an effort to levy on an account of one of the Bank’s depositors. We affirm.

*1397 FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

For a period of five years prior to initiation of this lawsuit, Da-Green, a New Jersey Corporation, sold merchandise to an entity representing itself as Sun Electronics Distribution, Inc. (“Sun”). Da-Green forwarded merchandise to Sun, and then received payment by check drawn on an account maintained at the Bank. “Sun Electronics Distribution, Inc.” was printed on the checks as the drawer/account holder.

In 1984, Da-Green shipped to Sun goods for which it received no payment. It subsequently initiated litigation in state court against Sun, and obtained a default judgment for $17,967.59. On September 4, 1986, Da-Green served on the Bank a writ of execution, seeking to levy on any Bank account in the name of Sun Electronics Distribution, Inc. The Bank refused to honor the writ of execution on the ground that it had no accounts under that name. It informed Da-Green, however, that it…

dissent Opinion

Norris, J.

dissenting:

I disagree with the majority opinion in only two respects, but my disagreement compels me to reach a different conclusion. First, when the writ of execution names a corporation while the account stands in the name of an individual, I do not agree that we can consider the discrepancy merely technical. Second, I find that the clear and explicit language of § 700.160 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that we read it literally. Because I read the statute as meaning what it says, I respectfully dissent.

Section 700.160 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it explicit that a judgment creditor cannot levy on a bank account standing in the name of someone other than the judgment debtor, unless he gets a court order. 1 Because Da-Green’s original writ of execution named only the corporation as a judgment debtor, it was ineffective as to the account held in the name of “Ronald Simonton, dba Sun Electronics Distribution.” The writ of execution authorized Da-Green to levy only upon accounts held in the corporate name, “Sun Electronics Distribution, Inc.” Thus, the Bank was plainly correct in taking the posi *1400 tion that the original writ of execution did not subject the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.