Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: BC680492, Date: 2025-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC680492    Hearing Date: March 18, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Judgment Creditor’s motion for assignment is CONTINUED, consistent with the ruling set forth below.

On 10/2/2017, Plaintiffs Josephine De Anda by and through her Guardian Ad Litem Jo Anna De Anda and the Successor Trustee of the Josephine De Anda Revocable Living Trust and Melina Wilson initiated this action. On 2/5/2020, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (SAC), alleging: (1) financial elder abuse; (2) quiet title; (3) fraud—intentional misrepresentation; (4) rescission; (5) conspiracy to commit fraud; (6) fraud—intentional misrepresentation ; (7) official misconduct of a notary public; (8) negligence per se; (9) cancellation of instrument; (10) conspiracy to commit fraud; (11) fraud—suppression of fact; (12)  slander of title; (13) cancellation of instrument; (14)  conversion; (15) breach of contract; (16) accounting; (17) common count; (18) common count; (19) cancellation of instrument; (20) declaratory relief; and (21) injunctive relief.

On 2/7/2025, Judgment Creditor  moved for an assignment order and an order restraining judgment debtor Lisa Guillen.

Discussion

           Judgment Creditor seeks an order to assign Judgment Debtor's rights to payment of monies in the following to the Judgment Creditor to the extent necessary and until the judgment is satisfied in:

Any account, accounts receivables, agreement, annuity policy value, assignment agreement, bond, bonus, commission, compensation, contract, credit, deposit, escrow  account, financing agreement, instrument, insurance policy loan value, insurance  proceeds, joint venture, letter of credit, loan, monies, profits, proceeds, profit sharing  agreement, real property, reimbursement agreement, royalties, settlement, severance payment, stocks held by the Judgment Debtor or held in the name of or for the benefits of or accessible to the Judgment Debtor in the possession, custody, control, or due to third parties.

           Judgment Creditor also seeks an order restraining the Judgment Debtor and any servant, agent, employee, employer, or attorney for Judgment Debtor and any person(s) in active concert and participation with the Judgment Debtor from encumbering, assigning, disposing, or spending her interest in and to all rights to payment thereafter.

           Judgment Creditor argues that she is entitled to this order on the grounds that “the Judgment Creditor has a Judgment against the Judgment Debtor for the total sum of $1,149,579.45 plus post-judgment interest, and that the Judgment Debtor has an assignable right to the payment described herein, and that there is a need to restrain the Judgment Debtor.” (Motion, 2: 22-25.)

In May 2023 a wage garnishment was served on the Defendants' employer W.B. Popwell, Inc., and an agreement was stipulated on 6/9/2023, for a fixed amount of $100.00 a week. (See Judgment Debtor’s Exhibit 1.) On 9/7/2023, Judgment Debtor was laid off from her employer W.B. Powell, Inc., and the wage garnishments stopped.

On 9/21/2023, Judgment Creditor served a garnishment order on Judgment Debtor's employer, H & B Global Industries dba Computek International (Computek). (Sagara Decl., Exh. 4.) On 10/3/2023, the San Bernardino Sheriffs Department received the signed Employer's Return from Computek indicating that the Judgment Debtor was "not employed by the employer." The letter from Computek further indicated that Judgment Debtor is an independent contractor.

An assignment order is designed to judicially assign rights to payments owed to a judgment debtor from a third party directly to the judgment creditor. (CCP §§ 708.510, 708.520.) CCP section 708.510 provides in relevant part: "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, upon application of the judgment creditor on noticed motion, the court may order the judgment debtor to assign to the judgment creditor ... all or part of a right to payment due or to become due, whether or not the right is conditioned on future developments, including but not limited to the following types of payments: (1) Wages due from the federal government that are not subject to withholding under an earnings withholding order. (2) Rents. (3) Commissions. (4) Royalties. (5) Payments due from a patent or copyright. and (6) Insurance policy loan value. (CCP § 708.510(a).) Accordingly, an assignment order permits a judgment creditor to reach certain forms of property that cannot be reached by levy under writ of execution, such as commissions.

Given that that Judgment Debtor is not an employee of Computek, but rather is an independent contractor, the Court agrees that an assignment order is an appropriate method to reach the Judgment Debtor's right to payments held by Computek.

Judgment Debtor seeks “an assignment of all or part of the Judgment Debtor's right to payment under any contract or agreement.” (Motion, 8: 5-6.) However, Judgment Creditor does not set forth any proposed partial amount to be garnished, and Judgment Creditor has not set forth any evidence or argument to show that Judgment Debtor does not rely on her wages for her livelihood such that all of her wages could be garnished. In opposition, Judgment Debtor set forth evidence that her gross wages are $961.54 per week, and that she receives $922 per month to support her eight year old child that she has physical custody of. Based on this income, Judgment Debtor claims that her current income in insufficient to support her and her child, and that “[t]he requested assignment order would impose an undue hardship by diverting essential income necessary for basic living expenses per the IRS National Standards.” (Guillen Decl. ¶ 6.)

After review, the Court finds no basis to assignment all of Judgment Debtor's right to payment under any contract or agreement. To do so would divert essential income necessary for basic living expenses per the IRS National Standards.

However, it is likely possible that some part of Judgment Debtor’s right to payment can be assigned based on Judgment Debtor’s breakdown of expenses. (See Guillen’s Exh. 6.) The Court orders the parties to meet and confer as to an amount that can be garnished without imposing undue hardship. If the parties are unable to informally resolve this matter, Judgment Creditor can renew its motion with supplemental argument and evidence as to the specific amount Judgment Creditor proposes be garnished.

Based on the foregoing, Judgment Creditor’s motion for assignment is continued, consistent with the ruling set forth above.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  March    , 2025

   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.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.