Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 22SMCP00266, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCP00266    Hearing Date: December 9, 2022    Dept: 207

Background

This is a post judgment matter on a dispute between Plaintiff Emily Brown-Phillips (“Plaintiff” or “Judgment Creditor”) and Defendant Lionsheart Consortium, LLC. On April 9, 2020, the Labor Commissioner for the Department of Industrial Relations awarded Plaintiff $31,043.37 in overtime wages, meal and rest period wages, liquidated damages, and waiting time penalties. On June 14, 2022, judgment was entered in accordance with the award of the Labor Commissioner. On July 1, 2022, an abstract of judgment was issued listing Defendants Lionsheart Consortium, Noelle Borao, and Mark Borao (collectively “Judgment Debtors”) as the judgment debtors on the June 14 judgment.

On November 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition to claim of exemption. No opposition or response to Plaintiff’s opposition has been submitted by any party.

Legal Standard

After being served with the claim of exemption and notice, a judgment creditor may oppose a claim of exemption by filing an opposition with the levying officer, or the property will be released whether or not the exemption claim is valid. (C.C.P. § 703.550(a).) A judgment creditor may oppose an exemption claim on the grounds that: 1) the property claimed exempt is not exempt under the EJL or other statute relied upon; or 2) the equity in the property claimed exempt is greater than the amount provided by the exemption. (C.C.P. § 703.560(a).) The opposition must state facts necessary to support the allegation. (C.C.P. § 703.560(b).)

At least ten days prior to the hearing, the judgment creditor shall serve, personally or by mail, notice of the hearing and a copy of the notice of opposition to the claim of exemption on the claimant and on the judgment debtor, if other than the claimant. (C.C.P. § 703.570(b).)

The court's decision may be based¿solely on the information in the claim of exemption and notice of opposition (which are deemed to controvert each other);¿or the court¿may continue the hearing for production of other oral or documentary evidence. (C.C.P. § 703.580(c).) The exemption statutes are liberally construed in favor of the claimant. (Independence Bank v. Heller¿(1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 84, 88.) The exemption claimant bears the burden of proof at the hearing. (C.C.P. § 703.580(b); see also¿O'Brien v. AMBS Diagnostics, LLC¿(2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 942, 948.)

Analysis

After obtaining a Writ of Execution, Plaintiff served a bank levy on J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A. (Yaksitch Decl., ¶3.) J.P. Morgan served Plaintiff with a Claim of Exemption stating accounts 3232 and 7238 contain exempt funds. (Ex. 1 to Yaksitch Decl.) J.P. Morgan further stated these accounts contain $3,381.29 and $28,417.08, respectively, in funds in excess of the maximum exemption amount set forth at Code Civ. Proc. § 704.080. (Id.) Plaintiff states the Los Angeles County Sheriff levying officer explained a claim of exemption is automatically generated whenever a memorandum of garnishee indicates the levied property is a direct deposit benefits and/or Social Security deposit account. (Yaksitch Decl. at ¶6.) Plaintiff states counsel for Judgment Debtors has advised the Judgment Debtors did not file claims of exemption and did not oppose Plaintiff’s request for release of the $3,381.29 and $28,417.08 in excess funds held in these accounts. The Court notes no party has opposed Plaintiff’s request or filed any documents in support of the claim of exemption. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion in opposition to the claim of exemption and orders the release of the levied funds to the Judgment Creditor.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion in opposition to the claim of exemption is GRANTED.