INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY VS RUVALCABA, ANTONIO

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 14K15062    Hearing Date: December 03, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION FOR WAGE GARNISHMENT ORDER AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTOR’S SPOUSE

(CCP § 706.120 et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff / Judgment Creditor Infinity Insurance Company’s Motion for Wage Garnishment Order Against Judgment Debtor’s Spouse is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On March 26, 2015, a default judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff Creditor Infinity Insurance Company (“Judgment Creditor”) and against Defendant Antonio Ruvalcaba (“Judgment Debtor”) in the amount of $8,932.62. Judgment Creditor has successfully collected $6,506.54 in wage garnishment from Judgment Creditor, but $3,174.86, which includes post-judgment interests, remains unsatisfied.

Judgment Creditor, on August 12, 2019, filed the this Motion for Wage Garnishment Order (the “Motion”) seeking an order to garnish Judgment Debtor’s spouse’s wages under CCP § 706.109. Judgment Creditor contended Gema Devora is Judgment Debtor’s spouse.

On September 10, 2019, the court continued this motion based on the following insufficiencies in the moving papers: (1) insufficient evidence that Gema Devora is Judgment Debtor’s current spouse and (2) failure to provide admissible evidence to demonstrate who Devora’s current employer is.

On November 4, 2019, Judgment Creditor filed a supplemental declaration of Susan H. Green. On November 5, 2019, Judgment Creditor filed a supplemental declaration of Diane Talvensaari.

There are still no opposition papers.

II. Legal Standards

“Except for an earning assignment order for support, the earnings of an employee shall not be required to be withheld by an employer for payment of a debt by means of any judicial procedure other than pursuant to this chapter.” (CCP § 706.020.) “Both the wage garnishment law and the attachment law protect wages from creditors. The wage garnishment law provides the exclusive judicial procedure by which a judgment creditor can execute against the wages of a judgment debtor, except for cases of judgments or orders for support. [Citation.] It limits the amount of earnings which may be garnished in satisfaction of a judgment and establishes certain exemptions from earnings which may not be garnished. [Citation.]” (California State Employees’ Assn. v. State of California (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 374, 377.)

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

III. Analysis

Here, to show Gema Devora is Judgment Debtor’s current spouse, Judgment Creditor offers the following evidence:

• 2006 grant deed indicating Judgment Debtor and Gema Devora are married. (Mot., Exh. B.)

• Address Updates from a paid database service for Judgment Debtor and Gema Devora, which indicate they are each other’s spouses. (Green Supp. Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.)

• Upon search, no records found indicating Judgment Debtor and Gema Devora divorced or became legally separate. (Talvensaari Supp. Decl. ¶ 5; Green Supp. Decl. ¶ 9.)

Based on the foregoing, Judgment Creditor presents sufficient evidence that Gema Devora is Judgment Debtor’s current spouse.

Next, the court considers whether Judgment Creditor has provided sufficient evidence to show what is Devora’s current employer. At the initial hearing, the court determined Judgment Creditor failed to provide admissible evidence to demonstrate what Devora’s current employer is.

In the moving papers, Judgment Creditor’s counsel declares that she had “obtained an investigation report for Gema Devora which confirmed that Mr. Ruvalcaba was disabled and not working, that Gema Devora was married to Antonio Ruvalcaba, and that she worked at Farmer Johns in Los Angeles.” (Motion, Green Decl. ¶ 9.) But, because Judgment Creditor failed to include the investigation report, the court determined there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate who Devora’s current employer was.

In the supplemental declarations, neither Green nor Talvensaari expressly states any information concerning Devora’s current employer. Attached to Green’s supplemental declaration appears to be the investigation report referred to in Green’s original declaration. (Green Supp. Decl., Exh. A.) Upon review of report, it does not show that Devora’s current employer is Farmer John, as originally asserted by Judgment Creditor in the moving papers. The report appears to show Devora worked for Farmer John between 7-14 and 7-15. The report appears to show Devora’s most recent employer is “Smithfield Packaged Me”, but the dates of employment appear to be only 9-18. It is unclear from the report whether Devora still works at Smithfield.

Based on the foregoing, Judgment Creditor fails to show what Devora’s current employer is, or whether she is even employed. Thus, Judgment Creditor fails to show there are any current wages to which an earnings withholding order would apply.

IV. Conclusion & Order

The Motion is therefore DENIED. Judgment Creditor have already had one opportunity to provide supplemental briefing on the issue of demonstrating what Devora’s current employer is.

Judgment Creditor is ordered to give notice.