Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 20STCV36728, Date: 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV36728    Hearing Date: February 14, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion for an order allowing the garnishment of the judgment debtor’s spouse’s wages is CONTINUED to allow Plaintiff to provided supplemental materials.

On 9/25/2020, Plaintiff PNC Equipment Finance, LLC (Plaintiff) filed suit against Kennedy Transfer, Inc. and Sevada Amirian, alleging: (1) breach of loan and security agreement; (2) breach of personal guaranty; (3) account stated; (4) open book; and (5) unjust enrichment.

            On 3/16/2021, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff for a total of $152,539.98.

            Now, Plaintiff seeks an order allowing the garnishment of Biania Amirian, the spouse of judgment debtor Seveda Smirian.   

            The motion is unopposed.

Legal Standards 

The Enforcement of Judgments Law (CCP §§ 680.010-724 .260) provides: “Except as otherwise provided by law, all property of the judgment debtor is subject to enforcement of a money judgment.” (CCP § 695.010(a).)  Moreover, CCP § 695.020(a) states that “[c]ommunity property is subject to enforcement of a money judgment as provided in the Family Code.” 

An earnings withholding order may not be issued against the earnings of the spouse of a judgment debtor except by court order upon noticed motion.  (CCP § 706.109.)   

Furthermore, “[e]xcept 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 has 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.”  (Cal. Fam. Code § 910(a).)   

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for an order permitting it to garnish the wages of the Judgment Debtor’s spouse’s earnings.    

Plaintiff’s counsel avers that Plaintiff has been unsuccessful in recovering on its Judgment as Judgment Debtor has refused to resolve this judgment through settlement negotiations or compromise. (McKendrick Decl., ¶ 3.) Furthermore, Plaintiff asserts that it has otherwise been unable to satisfy its judgment. For example, Judgment Creditor was unable to serve Judgment Debtor with an Order to Appear for a Judgment Debtor Examination. (Id. at  ¶ 4.) In addition, Judgment Creditor attempted a bank levy on the bank account of Judgment Debtor, but said attempt was unsuccessful. (Ibid.) Because Judgment Debtor is apparently self-employed, she cannot be subject to a wage levy. (Id. at  ¶ 5.)

            California law provides that wages of a spouse during a 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.  (CCP §§ 695.020, 706.109.) However, the only evidence provided by Plaintiff to show that Biania Amirian is the spouse of the Judgment Debtor and is employed by RSM US LLP is a statement based only on information and belief:

I am informed that BIANIA AMIRIAN is the spouse of the Judgment Debtor and was married to Judgment Debtor at the time the underlying debt that forms the basis of this Judgment was incurred. Further, I have ascertained that BIANIA AMIRIAN is employed by RSM US LLP located at 515 South Flower Street, 17th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071.

            (McKendrick Decl., ¶ 6.)

The Court finds this insufficient to order a wage levy at this time. Plaintiff must submit the public record evidence which it has relied on to form its belief that Biania Amirin is the Judgment Debtor’s spouse and is an employee at RSM US LLP.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is continued.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  February    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.