Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV01322, Date: 2025-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01322    Hearing Date: March 14, 2025    Dept: A

MOTION FOR ORDER ALLOWING WITHHOLDING

OF WAGES OF SPOUSE OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is required and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

On July 31, 2023, ARF Financial, LLC., f/k/a Advance Restaurant Finance, LLC. (Judgment Creditor) was granted default judgment as against AA Shop 5 Inc. and Rishab S. Oberoi (Rishab) in the amount of $54,358.78. This action derives from a Universal Merchant Credit Application made between Judgment Creditor and Rishab.  

Before the Court is a noticed motion requesting the entry of an order which would authorize Judgment Debtor to issue an earnings withholding order for Rohini Oberoi (Rohini). Judgment Creditor asserts that Rohini is the spouse of Rishab, and that Rohini’s earnings are subject to levy as community property. Neither Rishab nor Rohini oppose this motion.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

Judgment Creditor’s motion is made pursuant to C.C.P. § 706.109 which provides: “An earnings withholding order may not be issued against the earnings of the spouse of the judgment debtor except by court order upon noticed motion.”

The case law interpreting this section is scant, and primarily revolves around factual situations not at play here. The requirements of a motion made pursuant to C.C.P. § 706.109 appear to be simply those of the individual statutes governing community property and debt liability during the course of marriage. The relevant statutes for purposes of this motion appear to be:

·         Family Code § 760 and C.C.P. §§ 695.020(a) & 706.109: Providing that the wages of a spouse during marriage are generally community property, and a judgment creditor may move for a court to issue a withholding order against a judgment debtor's spouse.

·         Family Code § 903(b): Providing that in the case of a contract, a debt is incurred "at the time the contract is made.”

·         Family Code § 910(a): Providing, "Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of which spouse had the management and control of the property and regardless of whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt or to a judgment for the debt."

·         Family Code § 911(a): Providing, "The earnings of a married person during marriage are not liable for a debt incurred by the person's spouse before marriage."

Incorporating the relevant statutes, the Court views C.C.P. § 706.109 as essentially requiring Judgment Creditor to demonstrate (1) Judgment Creditor and Rohini were married at the time the contract was made and (2) Judgment Creditor and Rohini are still married such that her wages can properly be levied.

II.                 MERITS

Procedural Deficiencies

C.C.P. § 1010 requires that a noticed motion be served upon a party to be notified. Here, Judgment Creditor’s motion is unaccompanied by any proof of service. It is entirely unclear whether Rishab or Rohini have received any notice of this motion or its hearing. Failure to serve a noticed motion violates both statutory requirements and fundamental principles of due process. (Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.) The Court finds this omission alone is grounds for denial.

Discussion

In addition to the failure to serve notice, the Court finds Judgment Creditor’s motion should be denied on its merits. As will be explained below, the Court finds Judgment Creditor has not sufficiently demonstrated Rohini’s wages are subject to withholding.

The contract at issue in this case, a Universal Merchant Credit Application, was entered into on July 29, 2022. (Compl. ¶ 5, Exh. 1.) As such, Judgment Creditor must demonstrate that Rohini and Rishab were married on that date. For reasons stated below the Court finds Judgment Creditor has not done so.

Rohini has appeared on this matter twice now, both upon Application for an Order for Appearance and Examination (ORAP). On October 25, 2024, Rohini appeared, and, upon request of the Judgment Creditor, the Court continued to allow Rohini to produce responsive documents. (See Oct. 25, 2024 Minute Order). The Court notes that Judgment Creditor’s Application for ORAP does not contain a request that Rohini bring or provide access to any specific documents. (See Apr. 16, 2024 Application).

On December 30, 2024, Rohini appeared for examination once more. Judgment Creditor sought leave to continue the examination, stating it was needed to continue settlement discussions. (See Dec. 30, 2024 Minute Order). The Court denied the request and ordered the examination to proceed, finding that requiring Rohini to come in for a third time would be onerous and an unreasonable disruption of her employment. (Id.) Judgment Creditor instead removed the ORAP from calendar and the Court advised that any further ORAP of Rohini would require renewed service.

In making this motion, Judgment Creditor submits the declaration of their counsel Angela Velen (Velen). Velen states her declaration is based on her, “…personal knowledge, including my personal knowledge as gained from my review of the books and records contained in my office's file, and the Court's file, relative to this matter.” (Velen Decl. ¶ 1.) Velen states the following:

·         Rohini Oberoi…is the spouse of Judgment Debtor, Rishab S. Oberoi aka Krishan Uberoi aka Aksha Y. Uberoi and shares in the community property interest of the parties. (Velen Decl. ¶ 5.)

·         The obligation that is the subject of this action was incurred on or about July 29, 2022, and the judgment that was entered in this matter was filed on July 31, 2023. At that time, RISHAB SOBEROI aka KRIS HAN UBEROI aka AKSHA Y UBEROI and ROHINI OBEROI were married, living in the same house, and permanently domiciled in California, a community property state. They are currently still married, and still domiciled together in the State of California. (Velen Decl. ¶ 6.)

·         Judgment Creditor is able to confirm that ROHINI OBEROI is an employee of Running Springs Academy. (Velen Decl. ¶ 8.)

The Court finds the Velen declaration is insufficient to demonstrate that Rishab and Rohini were married at the time the debt was incurred and remain married. The only way in which Velen would have personal knowledge of Rohini and Rishab’s marital status on the date of contract formation is if she has documents demonstrating as much, or she was told so by Rohini at the ORAP under the penalty of perjury. Here, there are no documents attached to the Velen declaration and there are no statements in the declaration that indicate the information Velen relies upon was told to her by Rohini at one of the ORAP.

The only document attached to Velen’s declaration is Rohini’s executed questionnaire from the October 25, 2024 ORAP. This questionnaire does not indicate when Rohini and Rishab became married.  In fact, the questionnaire does not even pose that question.

In short, Judgment Creditor has not shown any evidence from which the Court is satisfied that Rishab and Rohini were married at the time the underlying contract was made. As such, it cannot be said that her wages are subject to withholding as community property. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.

As a last matter, the Court admonishes Judgment Creditor for filing the Judgment Debtor Questionnaire without redacting Rishab’s social security number. (Velen Decl. Exh. 1.) CRC Rule 1.201(a)(1) explicitly prohibits the filing of any document containing an individuals unredacted social security number. The Court will presume this exposure was inadvertent and cautions that any further incidents may result in the imposition of sanction pursuant to CRC Rule 2.30. Judgment Creditor’s motion is ordered sealed and stricken from the Court’s record and Judgment Creditor is ordered to refile its motion/declaration with the appropriate reactions within 10 days.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

ARF Financial, LLC.’s Motion For Order Allowing Withholding of Wages of Spouse of Judgment Debtor came on regularly for hearing on March 14, 2025, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION FOR ORDER ALLOWING WITHHOLDING OF WAGES OF SPOUSE OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S MOTION IS ORDERED SEALED and STRICKEN FROM THE COURT RECORD FOR FAILURE TO ADHERE TO CRC RULE 1.201.(a)(1).

JUDGMENT CREDITOR IS TO REFILE ITS MOTION WITH THE APPROPRAITE REDACTIONS WITHIN 10 DAYS.  FAILURE TO FILE A REDACTED MOTION WILL RESULT IN MONETARY SANCTIONS.

THE COURT SETS AN OSC RE FILING REDACTED MOTION FOR ORDER ALLOWING WITHHOLDING OF WAGES OF SPOUSE OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR (NON-APPEARANCE) FOR MARCH 25, 2025.

JUDGMENT CREDITOR TO PROVIDE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.