Pristine Jewelers NY, Inc. v. Broner et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
PRISTINE JEWELERS NY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADRIEN BRONER, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-mc-80023-BLF
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING
[Re: ECF No. 22]
On July 18, 2023, this Court issued an assignment order against Defendants Adrien Broner
and About Billions, LLC (together “Debtors”) for any monies due, or to become due, to Debtors
from Don King Productions (“Don King”). ECF No. 16. Plaintiff Pristine Jewelers NY, Inc.
(“Pristine”) now moves for a second assignment order against Debtors for any monies due, or to
become due, to Debtors from Kick Streaming Pty Ltd. (“Kick”). ECF No. 22 at 1. Debtors have
not responded to Pristine’s motion.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
A final judgment for the recovery of money entered by a federal district court may be
registered for enforcement in any other federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1963. Any post-
judgment enforcement “must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is located.”
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(1). Under California law, “the [C]ourt may order the
judgment debtor to assign to the judgment creditor . . . all or part of a right to payment due or to
become due, whether or not the right is conditioned on future developments.” Cal. Civ. P. Code
§ 708.510(a).
Case 5:23-mc-80023-BLF Document 23 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 4

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
In determining whether an assignment order is appropriate, and the amount of such
assignment, the Court may consider all relevant factors, including:
(1) The reasonable requirements of a judgment debtor who is a natural person and
of persons supported in whole or in part by the judgment debtor. (2) Payments the
judgment debtor is required to make or that are deducted in satisfaction of other
judgments and wage assignments, including earnings assignment orders for
support. (3) The amount remaining due on the money judgment. (4) The amount
being or to be received in satisfaction of the right to payment that may be assigned.
Id. at § 708.510(c)(1)–(4). The Court may assign a right to payment “only to the extent necessary
to satisfy the money judgment.” Id. at § 708.510(d).
When moving for an assignment order, judgment creditors need not provide “detailed
evidentiary support” of the judgment debtor’s right to future payment. Legal Additions LLC v.
Kowalksi, No. 8-cv-2754, 2011 WL 3156724, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2011) (emphasis in
original). However, “some evidentiary support” and “some degree of concreteness to the expected
payment is required.” Id. (emphasis in original). The “payment due or to become due” must be
more than speculative “before the remedy of an assignment order can be provided.” Id. The
judgment creditor must also describe the expected payment source “with sufficient detail so that
defendants can file a claim of exemption or other opposition.” Icho v. PacketSwitch.com, Inc., No.
1-cv-20858, 2012 WL 4343834, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2012) (citation modified).
II. DISCUSSION
On July 18, 2023, this Court issued Pristine an assignment order against Debtors for any
monies due from Don King to satisfy a $1,628,333.08 judgment. ECF Nos. 16, 4-1 at 2. Pristine
now moves for a second assignment order against Debtors for any monies due from Kick. ECF
No. 22. Pristine notes that on October 28, 2023, a “credit of $150,000 was applied to the
judgment,” which after accounting for interest accrued, brings the judgment balance to
$1,402,882.31. ECF No. 22-1 at ¶ 14. Pristine does not specify how much, if any, of the
$150,000 credit was provided by Don King pursuant to the Court’s first assignment order. Pristine
Case 5:23-mc-80023-BLF Document 23 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 4

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
also fails to specify whether it expects to continue receiving payments from Don King. Without a
statement indicating the amount of funds received under the first assignment order, the Court
cannot consider the payments “that are deducted [from Debtors] in satisfaction of other judgments
and wage assignments.” Cal. Civ. P. Code § 708.510(a)(2).
In support of its motion for a second assignment order, Pristine includes a declaration
stating that “Kick is paying approximately $120,000 per month to Debtor[] Broner for live
streaming appearances and social posts about boxing.” ECF No. 22-1 at ¶ 16. As evidence of
these monthly payments, Pristine provides links to and copies of a Boxing Insider article and an
Instagram post. Id. at ¶¶ 17–18. These sources provide insufficient evidence to establish the
existence of expected payment or an ongoing contract between Debtor Broner and Kick.
First, the Boxing Insider article states that Debtor “Broner g[o]t his verified badge on
Kick,” but provides no indication that he received $120,000 from Kick or that he has a contract
with the streaming platform.1 ECF No. 22-1 at 12. Second, the Instagram post includes a reel
from the account kick2clipps, showing Debtor Broner reacting to his “monthly . . . hit[ting] his
account.”2 ECF No. 22-1 at 10. In the video, Debtor Broner does not state how much this
“monthly” is, but a text overlay proclaims that “Broner got a Bank Notification that Kick just
Deposited $125,000.” Id. These internet sources provide, at best, only speculative evidence that
Debtor Broner is receiving $120,000 per month from Kick. See Legal Additions LLC, 2011 WL
3156724, at *2 (“[T]here needs to be more than just speculation before the remedy of an
assignment order can be provided.”) The Court notes that under Fed. R. Civ. P 69(a)(2), Pristine
1 Adrien Broner On Kick: Quotes from His Wild Stream Run, Boxing Insider (May 12, 2026),
https://www.boxinginsider.com/headlines/adrien-broner-kick-quotes-stream/.
2 kick2clipps, Instagram (June 1, 2026), https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZD923yISdP/.
Case 5:23-mc-80023-BLF Document 23 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 4

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
“may obtain discovery from any person—including the judgment debtor—as provided in these
rules or by the procedure of the state where the court is located.”
III. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Pristine SHALL file and serve on Debtors a supplemental submission in support of its
application for an assignment in accordance with this Order by October 30, 2026.
(2) Debtors SHALL file a response by November 6, 2026.
(3) The hearing scheduled for January 7, 2027, is VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2026
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
Case 5:23-mc-80023-BLF Document 23 Filed 10/15/26 Page 4 of 4