Stoltenberg

Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments, Inc.

Good Law
159 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 357·215 Cal. App. 4th 1225
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 4, 2013No. B235731California4,771 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Mosk, J.

INTRODUCTION

Defendants, an individual and a corporation, appealed from a California judgment in favor of plaintiffs, but did not post a bond to stay enforcement of the judgment. Plaintiffs, after registering the judgment in New York where defendants are located, attempted to enforce the registered sister state judgment there by serving a subpoena seeking financial information from the corporate defendant. Defendants did not comply with the subpoena or with a New York trial court order compelling them to respond to it. As a result, the New York trial court held defendants in contempt. In dismissing defendants’ appeal under the disentitlement doctrine, we hold that the doctrine applies to noncompliance with and contempt of New York trial court orders, which noncompliance and contempt directly affect and frustrate the enforcement of a California judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Following a jury trial, the trial court entered a judgment on the verdict in favor of plaintiffs and respondents, 1 awarding them a total of $8,516,704 in *1228 compensatory damages, plus costs. 2 Defendants Ampton Investments, Inc., and Laurence Strenger 3 (defendants) filed a timely…

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.