Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: BC634359, Date: 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC634359    Hearing Date: October 5, 2022    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

The Court has considered the moving papers.  No opposition papers were filed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b). 

BACKGROUND

            On March 3, 3017, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Donte Antuan Jackson (“Jackson”) in the amount of $30,643.11. On July 12, 2022, Defendant and Judgment Debtor Donte Antuan Jackson (“Defendant”) served a claim of exemption (the “Claim”) asking that $100 at most be garnished from his wages in satisfaction of the judgment.  On July 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of opposition to claim of exemption (the “the Motion”) and notice of hearing on claim of exemption.

DISCUSSION

Procedural Requirements

Within 15 days after service of the notice of claim of exemption, a judgment creditor who opposes the claim of exemption shall file with the court a notice of opposition to the claim of exemption and a notice of motion for an order determining the claim of exemption and shall file with the levying officer a copy of the notice of opposition and a copy of the notice of motion.  (CCP § 703.550, subd. (a).)  Upon the filing of the copies of the notice of opposition and notice of motion, the levying officer shall promptly file the claim of exemption with the court. (Id.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the procedural requirements to oppose the claim of exemption.

Legal Standard

California's Enforcement of Judgments Law (“EJL”) which is codified in CCP sections 680.010 through 724.260, is a comprehensive and precisely detailed scheme governing enforcement of money judgments in California.  (O’Brien v. AMBS Diagnostics, LLC (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.)  As a general rule, the EJL authorizes a creditor holding a “money judgment” to “enforce” that judgment against “all property of the judgment debtor” through a “writ of execution.”  (Id.)  To effectuate the California Constitution's command that “a certain portion of the homestead and other property of all heads of families” be “protect[ed], by law, from forced sale” (Cal. Const., art. XX, § 1.5), the Legislature exempted certain items of property from levy by creditors with money judgments; those exemptions are set forth in sections 704.010 through 704.210.  (Id. at 947-48.)  

When ruling on an opposition to a claim of exemption, 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. (CCP § 703.580, subd. (c).)  Although the burden of proof lies with the party claiming the exemption, exemption statutes are generally construed in favor of the debtor.  (Kilker v. Stillman (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 320, 330.)

A judgment debtor is entitled to keep 75 percent of their weekly paid wages, which means that a judgment creditor is entitled to the remaining and disputed 25 percent.  (See CCP, subd. (a)(1).)  A judgment debtor may prevent the judgment creditor from seeking that 25 percent if the judgment debtor needs those wages for necessaries.  (Raigoza v. Sperl (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 560, 568.)  If 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, the claim of exemption shall include a financial statement.  (CCP § 703.580, subd. (a).)[1]

            The Claim does not set forth evidence of Defendant’s earnings; nor does it include a financial statement.  Plaintiff provides evidence that Defendant’s gross earnings per month are $4,910.37.  (Green Decl., Exhibit A.)  Plaintiff requests that $300 of Defendant’s monthly earnings be used to satisfy the judgment.  (Green Decl. ¶ 2.)

In light of the evidence presented in the Motion and lack of evidence set forth by the Claim, the Court GRANTS the Motion.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

            In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

              Dated this 5th day of October 2022