Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: KC062929, Date: 2024-05-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: KC062929 Hearing Date: May 15, 2024 Dept: K
Background
On January 17, 2012, Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Youju Cao aka Julia Cao (“Cao”). On June 13, 2012, default judgment was entered.
On August 9, 2021, a “Notice of Renewal of Judgment” was entered.
Discussion
The court determines that the opposition is timely.
MERITS:
“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the maximum amount of disposable earnings of an individual judgment debtor for any workweek that is subject to levy under an earnings withholding order shall not exceed the lesser of the following:
(1)
Twenty percent of the individual's disposable earnings for that week.
(2)
Forty percent of the amount by which the individual's disposable earnings for
that week exceed 48 times the state minimum hourly wage in effect at the time
the earnings are payable. If a judgment debtor works in a location where the
local minimum hourly wage is greater than the state minimum hourly wage, the
local minimum hourly wage in effect at the time the earnings are payable shall
be used for the calculation made pursuant to this paragraph.” (Code Civ. Proc.
§ 706.050, subd. (a).)
“For any pay period other than weekly, the following multipliers shall be used to determine the maximum amount of disposable earnings subject to levy under an earnings withholding order that is proportional in effect to the calculation described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), except as specified in paragraph (1):
(1)
For a daily pay period, the amounts shall be identical to the amounts described
in subdivision (a).
(2)
For a biweekly pay period, multiply the applicable hourly minimum wage by 96
work hours.
(3)
For a semimonthly pay period, multiply the applicable hourly minimum wage by
104 work hours.
(4)
For a monthly pay period, multiply the applicable hourly minimum wage by 208
work hours.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 706.050, subd. (b).) “Disposable earnings” are
those earnings remaining after deduction of any amounts required by law to be
withheld. (Code Civ. Proc., § 706.011, subd. (a).)
In addition to the automatic exemption for nonsupport withholding orders, that portion of an employee's earnings necessary for the support of the judgment debtor or his or her family is exempt from nonsupport earnings withholding orders (Code Civ. Proc., § 706.051, subds. (a),(b)).
Cao represents that all of her earnings are needed to support herself or her family. (Claim, ¶ 2). Cao is not willing to withhold anything from her earnings each pay period during the withholding period. (Id., ¶ 4). Cao specifies that she is paid every two weeks (Id., ¶ 5), that her gross monthly pay is $5,176.27 (Financial Statement [“FS”], ¶ 2) and that her total monthly income is $3,683.43 (Id., ¶ 2(e).)
Cao fails to identify whether or not she has a spouse or any dependents. (Id., ¶¶ 1 and 9). Cao represents that she has $152.00 in cash and another $2,447.20 in “Chase Bank checking and saving,” $2,784.60 in “East West Bank checking.” (Id., ¶ 3). Cao also represents that she owns a 2005 Toyota Camry worth $800.00, a 2007 Lexus RX350 worth $2,000.00 and a 2010 Toyota Prius worth $2,000.00. (Id.) Cao disavows having any real estate equity or other personal property. (Id.) Cao also disavows having any other income sources. (Id., ¶ 2).
Cao claims that her monthly expenses total $4,285.00, as follows: (1) $2,900.00 for rent or house payment and maintenance; (2) $300.00 for food and household supplies; (3) $415.00 for utilities and telephone; (4) $50.00 for clothing; (5) $80.00 for medical and dental payments; (6) $250.00 for insurance (life, health, accident, etc.); (7) $0 for school, child care; (8) $0 for child, spousal support; (9) $240.00 for transportation and auto expenses (insurance, gas, repair); (10) $0 for installment payments; (11) $50.00 for laundry and cleaning and (12) $0 for entertainment.
Cao advises that an earnings withholding order is now in effect with respect to her earnings, but fails to provide any further information in this regard. (Id., ¶ 7).
The exemption claimant has the burden of proof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.580, subd. (b).) Cao’s Financial Statement appears to be incomplete, in that she reports a monthly deficit of $ 601.57 and fails to identify whether she is married.