Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: BC441481, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC441481    Hearing Date: March 1, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Pleadings

On July 12, 2010, Plaintiff Eneyda Mendez sued Defendants Rodolfo Ruiz, dba Rancho Plaza Carniceria, Sylvia Ruiz, dba Rancho Plaza Carniceria, Rancho Plaza Carniceria, and Does 1 through 20 pursuant to claims of (1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wage, (2) Failure to Pay Overtime Wage, (3) Failure to Provide Rest Periods, (4) Failure to Provide Meal Periods, (5) Willful Failure to Pay Wages, (6) Failure to Provide Itemized Wage Statements, and (7) Violations of Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

Relevant Procedural History

On March 18, 2014, Plaintiff Mendez amended the complaint to correct a typographical error naming her “Eneida Mendez” instead of “Eneyda Mendez.”

That same day, the Court entered judgment in this action after a court trial, finding for Plaintiff Mendez as against Defendants Rodolfo and Sylvia Ruiz, dba Rancho Plaza Carniceria, in the amount of $28,339.73.

On March 20, 2014, the Clerk gave notice of entry of judgment.

On July 8, 2014, the Court entered an amended judgment in the amount of $56,167.54.

On July 14, 2014, the Clerk gave notice of entry of amended judgment.

On November 21, 2023, Plaintiff Mendez filed an application for renewal of judgment in the amount of $119,447.47.

On November 28, 2023, the Clerk noticed a renewal of judgment.

On December 4, 2024, Plaintiff Mendez filed an application for writ of execution on the money judgment.

On December 5, 2023, the Clerk issued the writ.

On February 2, 2024, Plaintiff Mendez filed an abstract of judgment.

That same day, the Clerk issued the abstract.

Motion Before the Court

Prior to the issuance of the abstract of judgment, on January 19, 2024, Defendant Sylvia Ruiz noticed a claim of exemption seeking the release of unspecified property levied from her Bank of America account(s).

On February 1, 2024, Plaintiff Mendez filed a notice of hearing on claim of exemption.

That same day, Plaintiff Mendez filed a notice of opposition to claim of exemption.

On February 1, 2024, Plaintiff Mendez filed a motion for order determining claim of exemption, which identified the levied property as an unspecified number of dollars held in Sylvia Ruiz’s Bank of America account(s).

Defendant Sylvia Ruiz’s claim of exemption is now before the Court.

Claim of Exemption

Legal Standard

Except as otherwise provided by law, all property of the judgment debtor is subject to enforcement of a money judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 695.010, subd. (a).) After entry of a money judgment other than those arising from the Family Code (subject to additional requirements), and upon application of the judgment creditor, the clerk of the court shall issue a writ of execution, which must be directed to the levying officer in the county where the levy is to be made and to any registered process server. (Code Civ. Proc., § 699.510.)

Property that has been levied upon may be claimed to be exempt as provided in Code of Civil Procedure sections 703.510 to 703.610 unless otherwise provided by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.510, subd. (a); see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 703.510-703.610 [Enforcement of Money Judgments, Exemptions, Procedure for Claiming Exemptions After Levy].)

The debtor must make the claim within 15 days of the date the notice of levy on the property was served (20 days if the notice of levy was served by mail). (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.520, subd. (a).)

The claim must be executed under oath and include the name and mailing address of the claimant, a description of the property claimed to be exempt, a financial statement as required by section 703.530, a citation of the statute on which the claim is based, and a statement of facts necessary to support the claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.520, subd. (b).) A financial statement is required where property is claimed as exempt pursuant to a provision exempting property to the extent necessary for the support of the judgment debtor and the spouse and dependents of the judgment debtor. (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.530, subd. (a).) The financial statement must be executed under oath by the judgment debtor and the debtor’s spouse unless the same are living separate and apart, and must include:

(1) The name of the spouse of the judgment debtor;

(2) The name, age, and relationship of all persons dependent upon the judgment debtor or the spouse of the judgment debtor for support;

(3) All sources and the amounts of earnings and other income of the judgment debtor and the spouse and dependents of the judgment debtor;

(4) A list of the assets of the judgment debtor and the spouse and dependents of the judgment debtor and the value of such assets; and

(5) All outstanding obligations of the judgment debtor and the spouse and dependents of the judgment debtor.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 703.530, subds. (b)(1)-(5), (c).)

 The hearing on the motion shall be held not later than 30 days from the date the notice of motion was filed with the court unless continued by the court for good cause. (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.570, subd. (a).)

The claim of exemption is deemed controverted by the notice of opposition to the claim of exemption and both shall be received in evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.580, subd. (c).) If no other evidence is offered, the court, if satisfied that sufficient facts are shown by the claim of exemption (including the financial statement if one is required) and the notice of opposition, may make its determination thereon. (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.580, subd. (c).) If not satisfied, the court shall order the hearing continued for the production of other evidence, oral or documentary. (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.580, subd. (c).)

At the hearing on the claim of exception, the claimant has the burden of proof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.580, subd. (b).)

Order Granting Claim of Exemption: DENIED.

Here, after review, the Court DENIES the claim of exemption.

First, the Court notes that the levying officer—the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (see Notice of Hearing on Claim of Exemption, p. 1, § 1)—has not filed the papers related to the claim of exemption with the Court, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 699.510. However, the Court can proceed with its discussion based on Plaintiff Mendez’s attachment of those documents. (Mendez Mot., Ortiz Decl., Ex. A.)

Second, the Court notes that the motion filed by Plaintiff Mendez seeking a determination on the claim of exemption was served on Defendant Sylvia Ruiz. (Mendez Mot., Proof of Service.)

Third, the Court notes that the claim of exemption is not supported by any attachments or supporting evidence, instead arguing in full that the levied monies are needed for “living expenses” and protected under Code of Civil Procedure sections “704.070,” “706.050,” and “706.051.” (Mendez Mot., Ortiz Decl., Ex. A, EJ-160, p. 1, §§ 4-5.)

Fourth, the Court determines that relief is not available here because no financial statement supports the claim of exemption, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 703.530, subdivision (a).

Last, the Court agrees with Plaintiff Ruiz that the claim of exemption does not state proper statutory authority. Section 704.070 simply defines paid earnings for exemption purposes, and subdivision (b)(2) does not apply to the facts here. Section 706.051 only details the definition for family of a judgment debtor, and clarifies circumstances where relief is not available. Section 706.050 is applicable insofar as it touches upon disposable earnings as exempt property, but the claim of exemption—unsupported by any attachments—does not properly support relief pursuant to this statutory section.

Defendant Sylvia Ruiz’s claim is thus DENIED. 

Conclusion

Defendant Sylvia Ruiz’s Claim of Exemption is DENIED.