A California Superior Court judge on Friday denied a motion for a finance-based temporary restraining order filed on behalf of Veronica Brill against Mike Postle. The motion sought to prevent Postle from spending or disbursing his poker winnings before paying Brill over $30,000 in legal fees he currently owes.
Superior Court Judge Richard K. Sueyoshi reviewed the ex parte motion filed on Brill’s behalf by her defense attorney in Postle’s failed $300 million defamation case, Marc J. Randazza. Judge Sueyoshi described Brill’s motion as “both procedurally and substantially defective,” which in turn allows Postle to retain the nearly $33,000 he won for a final-table showing in the Beau Rivage (MS) casino’s Million Dollar Heater main event.
As happened with a parallel effort in Mississippi to garnish Postle’s winnings, the rushed California effort couldn’t pass all the legal and procedural hurdles in a timely manner. In essence, Judge Sueyoshi ruled that Brill and others acting on her behalf had to yet to exhaust all the other means of collecting a court-ordered debt before seeking the TRO.
Judge Sueyoshi also dismissed the motion’s assertion that “fraudulent transfers” were conducted by Postle or others to his benefit, referring in general to the use by the Beau Rivage of the munged name “Mike Lawrence” in the casino’s official chip counts. “Defendant has no pending causes of action to set aside fraudulent transfers,” Sueyoshi wrote, “and even if it had such pending claims, Defendant has made no showing of an inadequate remedy at law or irreparable harm that requires injunctive relief.
The judge made clear, however, that the debt Postle owes to Brill still stands. “While the Court DENIES Defendant’s ex parte application,” Sueyoshi wrote, “the Court notes that such denial remains without prejudice to Defendant pursuing statutory judgment collection measures to the extent Defendant possesses an enforceable judgment.”
No rush to initiate alternate collection efforts
Brill and others working on her behalf retain several statutory means to collect the debt, which dates from 2021. Brill and another former defendant to whom Postle owes legal expenses, Todd Witteles, also retain the right to assign the debt to a California-based debt collection specialist with experience in pursuing court-ordered judgments. Such debt-collecting agents and agencies typical keep 50 percent of any money recovered while working on a contingency basis.
However, the longer Brill and Witteles wait to collect their debts, the more valuable those judgments become. Court-ordered judgments in California accumulate simple interest at a rate of 10 percent per year, meaning that an initial debt will have doubled in size after 10 years.
California law also stipulates that a court-ordered debt remains in effect for ten years after being awarded; here, that calendar began in July of 2021. The debt can also be renewed for unlimited additional 10-year periods any time before the current 10-year debt expires.
Featured image source: California Superior Court