Opinion 2023 California Entity_Type Opinion2023SaregamaProcedureRulesChargingOrder
SAREGAMA INDIA, LTD, Plaintiff,
v.
SUBRAMANIAN AIYER, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 23-mc-80172-VC.
United States District Court, N.D. California.
November 29, 2023.
VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge.
Saregama India seeks an order charging Bharath Aiyer's alleged partnership interest in McKinsey & Company to satisfy a prior judgment entered against the defendant. The request is denied.
Under California law, when there is a money judgment "against a partner or member but not against the partnership or limited liability company," a charging order may be issued against the partner's or member's interest. Cal. Civ. Code ยง 708.310; see also Textron Financial Corp. v. Gallegos, No. 15CV1678-LAB (DHB), 2015 WL 11658718, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2015). But issuing such an order "requires `substantial evidence' that the debtor is a partner or member of the entity." Textron Financial, 2015 WL 11658718, at *2.
Here, Saregama India has not made this showing. First, it has not demonstrated that McKinsey & Company is organized as a partnership. The only evidence presented is a New York Times article which suggests McKinsey is structured as a partnership. Second, even if McKinsey is a partnership, Saregama India has not provided "substantial evidence" that Aiyer is a partner, such that Section 708.310 would apply. The only evidence Saregama India offers is a webpage for a symposium that lists Aiyer's job title as partner and Aiyer's LinkedIn page which identifies him as a partner. This does not constitute "substantial evidence."
Because Saregama India has failed to meet its evidentiary burden, its request is denied, and the case is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.