Judge John J. Kralik, Case Number: 19BBCV00548, Date: 2025-06-13 Tentative Ruling

Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org

PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT. YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT. YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY. Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.

IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.

THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.

Warning regarding electronic appearances: All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department B

Plaintiff Navy Federal Credit Union (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on November 13, 2017, it entered into a written contract with Defendant Beniamin Gulasarian[1] (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached the agreement on January 17, 2018 by failing to make payments pursuant to the loan contract, such that Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $49,687.59.

The complaint, filed June 24, 2019, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; and (2) common counts.

On February 10, 2020, the default judgment of Defendant was entered in the total amount of $58,457.50.

On March 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order compelling payment of judgment debt by Garnishee.

(a) If a third person is required by this article to deliver property to the levying officer or to make payments to the levying officer and the third person fails or refuses without good cause to do so, the third person is liable to the judgment creditor for whichever of the following is the lesser amount:

(1) The value of the judgment debtor's interest in the property or the amount of the payments required to be made.

(2) The amount required to satisfy the judgment pursuant to which the levy is made.

(b) The third person's liability continues until the earliest of the following times:

(1) The time when the property levied upon is delivered to the levying officer or the payments are made to the levying officer.

(2) The time when the property levied upon is released pursuant to Section 699.060.

(c) If the third person's liability is established, the court that determines the liability may, in its discretion, require the third person to pay the costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the judgment creditor in establishing the liability.

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling HI Jewelry to pay the judgment debt of $58,457.50 owed by Defendant in attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiff argues that the earnings withholding order was served on Garnishee HI Jewelry on November 6, 2023, HI Jewelry has ignored the earnings withholding order, and Plaintiff served a non-compliance letter on December 14, 2024.

In support of the motion, Plaintiff provides the declaration of its counsel Dimitris Kostelidis. Mr. Kostelidis states that he sent the Los Angeles County Sheriff a writ of execution and Application for Earnings Withholding Order to garnish Defendant’s wages from his employer HI Jewelry, citing exhibit 1. (Kostelidis Decl., ¶2.) He states that the Sheriff’s Office provided him a copy of HI Jewelry’s Employer’s Return indicating that it had received the Earnings Withholding Order and that Defendant was employed, citing exhibits 2 and 3. (Id.) He states that HI Jewelry has not paid any monies over to the Sheriff’s Office pursuant to the Earnings Withholding Order. (Id., ¶2.) He states that he sent a meet and confer letter to HI Jewelry on January 25, 2024 (citing exhibit 4), but HI Jewelry did not respond to the letter. (Id., ¶3.) Mr. Kostelidis calculates the present balance owing against Defendant to be $58,457.50. (Id., ¶4.) He states that Plaintiff has incurred $760 in attorney’s fees and costs to prepare the meet and confer letter and this motion, as well as the anticipated time to attend the hearing, plus $60 in costs. (Id., ¶5.)

The Court notes that while Mr. Kostelidis cites to various exhibits, no exhibits are attached to his declaration. However, the Court is able to view the Writ of Execution (received October 4, 2023) through its own records. The moving papers also include letters dated December 14, 2023 and January 25, 2024, notifying HI Jewelry of its non-compliance with its garnishment obligations, as well as a Proof of Service (Earnings Withholding Order) dated November 7, 2023 addressed to HI Jewelry. (See Mot. at attached exhibits.)

While the Court is inclined to grant this motion, the Court will order Plaintiff to file a copy of the Earnings Withholding Order and a copy of the Employer’s Return, which were supposed to be attached as Exhibits 2 and 3 to Mr. Kostelidis’ declaration. Upon receipt of these documents, the Court will review the contents of the garnishment order and confirm whether Defendant is employed by HI Jewelry.

The Court is inclined to grant Plaintiff Navy Federal Credit Union’s motion for an order compelling payment of judgment debt by Garnishee. However, prior to entering an order, the Court orders Plaintiff to file a copy of the Earnings Withholding Order and a copy of the Employer’s Return, which were referenced as Exhibits 2 and 3 to Dimitris Kostelidis’ declaration but were not attached for the Court’s review. If Plaintiff is able to file a supplemental declaration with the exhibits prior to the hearing date, the Court will review the documents before or at the hearing.

[1] Plaintiff initially sued “Benjamin Gulasarian,” but filed an Amendment to the Complaint correcting Defendant’s name to “Beniamin Gulasarian” on September 20, 2019.