Kaffaga v. Steinbeck

── Kaffaga v. Steinbeck ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WAVERLY SCOTT KAFFAGA, as No. 25-2497 Executor of The Estate of Elaine Anderson D.C. No. Steinbeck; BAHAR KAFFAGA, as 2:14-cv-08699-TJH-FFM Executor of The Estate of Elaine Anderson Steinbeck, MEMORANDUM* Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. GAIL KNIGHT STEINBECK, Defendant - Appellant, and THOMAS STEINBECK, PALLADIN GROUP INC., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 31, 2026** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: GOULD, BENNETT, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Appellant Gail Knight Steinbeck appeals pro se the district court’s order denying both her Motion to Modify the Assignment Order and her Second Renewed Motion for an Order Permitting the Sale of Assets to Satisfy the Judgment. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. Generally, “[w]e review the [district] court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” See Stevedoring Serv. of Am. v. Ancora Transp., N.V., 59 F.3d 879, 883 (9th Cir. 1995). We apply the applicable standard of review under state law for judgment enforcement procedures incorporated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(1). See Hendricks & Lewis PLLC v. Clinton, 766 F.3d 991, 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2014); Cigna Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Polaris Pictures Corp., 159 F.3d 412, 421 (9th Cir. 1998). California courts typically review orders issued under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 708.510(a) for an abuse of discretion, see Est. of Kempton v. Kinney, 308 Cal. Rptr. 3d 249, 262–63 (Ct. App. 2023); Mintz v. Denis, No. B331529, 2024 WL 4614878 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2024), and so we review the court’s denial of Appellant’s Motion to Modify the Assignment Order for an abuse of discretion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s Motion to Modify the Assignment Order. The procedure governing enforcement 2 25-2497 of a money judgment generally must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is located. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1). Here, sections 708.510 and 708.560 of the California Code of Civil Procedure constitute the relevant state law. Section 708.560 requires the court to modify an assignment order “upon a showing that there has been a material change in circumstances since the time of the previous hearing on the assignment order.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 708.560(b). Section 708.510 provides that to secure satisfaction of a money judgment, a “court may order the judgment debtor to assign to the judgment creditor . . . all or part of a right to payment due or to become due,” including, among other types of payments, “[r]oyalties” and “[p]ayments due from a patent or copyright.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 708.510(a). In determining whether to order an assignment, “the court may take into consideration all relevant factors,” including “[t]he reasonable requirements of [the] judgment debtor” and “[t]he