This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/12/2016 at 23:47:57 (UTC).

VICTOR H. OLIVEROS VS AMERICAN TIRE DEPOT, INC.

Case Summary

On 04/28/2010 VICTOR H OLIVEROS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against AMERICAN TIRE DEPOT, INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Glendale Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DONNA FIELDS GOLDSTEIN. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2929

  • Filing Date:

    04/28/2010

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Glendale Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

DONNA FIELDS GOLDSTEIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

OLIVEROS VICTOR H.

Defendants

ATV INC. (DOE 3)

AMERICAN TIRE DEPOT INC.

TCHAGLASSIAN ARA (DOE 1)

ATD INC. (DOE 2)

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

THE MANDELL LAW FIRM

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/14/2010
  • Request for Dismissal (with prejudice entire action ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2010
  • Notice of Settlement Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2010
  • Default Entered Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2010
  • Request for Entry of Default Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2010
  • Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2010
  • Req for Entry of Court's Judgment Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2010
  • Exhibit List (/ declaration of authenticity ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2010
  • Declaration (of Pltff. Victor H. Oliveros ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2010
  • Miscellaneous-Other (Case Summary/ status of case ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2010
  • Proof of Svc of Summons & Co./Ptn. (sub svc and mailing on 7-19-10 ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
2 More Docket Entries
  • 07/09/2010
  • Request for Dismissal-Partial (without prejudice as to Doe 2, ATD, Inc. only ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2010
  • Statement of Damages Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2010
  • Default Entered Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2010
  • Request for Entry of Default Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2010
  • Amendment to Complaint Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2010
  • Proof of Svc of Summons & Co./Ptn. (sub svc on 5-13-10 and mailed on 5-14-10 ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2010
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2010
  • Notice-Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2010
  • Summons Filed Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2010
  • Notice (of OSC re trial court delay reduction ) Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC052929    Hearing Date: January 24, 2020    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

THE E-TAIL NETWORK INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

M K IMAGING INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: EC058929

Hearing Date: January 24, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for issuance of earnings withholding order against bella abramova, spouse of judgment debtor

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff The E-Tail Network Inc. (“Plaintiff”) alleges that it entered into an agreement with Defendants M K Imaging Inc. and Karen Mekteryan. The agreement is entitled “Wachovia Bank, National Association Business Line of Credit Agreement” in the amount of $50,000.00. Plaintiff alleges it is the current holder and owner of the agreement. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to pay the sum of $50,117.55 on the agreement. The complaint, filed on August 17, 2012, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of guaranty; (3) money lent; (4) money had and received; (5) account stated; and (6) open book account.

On October 4, 2012, the defaults of Defendants were entered.

On December 3, 2012, default judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants for the amount of $52,557.41 total (which included $50,117.55 principal, $1,892.36 attorney’s fees, and $547.50 costs).

On May 22, 2019, a Notice of Renewal of Judgment was filed, extending the period of enforceability of the judgment for 10 years.

Relevant recent filings indicate that an Abstract of Judgment – Civil and Small Claims was issued on August 7, 2019 against Karen Mekteryan in the amount of $85,936.19 based on the judgment entered on December 3, 2012, which was renewed.

On November 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledge of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest, which shows that no credits have been applied and the remaining due is $85,936.19, with an additional $3,508.09 in interest. The concurrently field Writ of Execution (Money Judgment) shows that the total amount sought against the judgment debtors is $89,469.28.

On December 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for issuance of earnings withholding order against Bella Ambrova, the wife of judgment debtor Karen Mekteryan. The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP §708.510(a) provides: “Except 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….” The motion must be served on the judgment debtor, personally or by mail. (CCP §708.510(b).) In order to determine whether to order an assignment or the amount of an assignment, the court may take into consideration all relevant factors, including:

(1) The reasonable requirements of a judgment debtor who is a natural person and of persons supported in whole or in part by the judgment debtor.

(2) Payments the judgment debtor is required to make or that are deducted in satisfaction of other judgments and wage assignments, including earnings assignment orders for support.

(3) The amount remaining due on the money judgment.

(4) The amount being or to be received in satisfaction of the right to payment that may be assigned.

(CCP §708.510(c).) Finally, a right to payment may be assigned only to the extent necessary to satisfy the money judgment. (CCP §708.510(d).)

According to Family Code, §910, the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage. “Debt” means an obligation incurred by a married person before or during marriage. (Fam. Code, §902.) Community property is subject to enforcement of a money judgment. (CCP §695.020(a).) “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.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves for issuance of an earnings withholding order against Bella Ambrova.

According to Plaintiff, Judgment Debtor Karen Mekteryan and Bella Ambrova are husband and wife, and live together at their residence. Plaintiff’s counsel, David J. Miller, states that upon information and belief, Bella Ambrova is employed by Queen B Nail Salon in Glendale, California. (Miller Decl., ¶4.)

However, no admissible proof of their marital status has been provided. At most, Plaintiff provides the declaration of Eric Thibault. Mr. Thibault states that he is not a registered process server. (Thibault Decl., ¶2.) On July 4, 2019, he attempted service of the Debtor’s Examination and Civil Subpoena on the Judgment Debtor at the residence and Bella Ambrova answered the door, stating that she would accept service in place of her husband. (Id., ¶¶3-4.) Thus, the only support that Plaintiff has presented to this Court that Karen Mekteryan and Bella Ambrova are married is essentially based on a hearsay comment.

As the Court does not have any declaration or documentary evidence showing that Karen Mekteryan and Bella Ambrova are in fact married and that the debt was incurred by Karen Mekteryan before or during the marriage, the Court will require more proof prior to issuing an earnings withholding order against Bella Ambrova’s earnings at her purported place of employment.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The motion is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff should refile the motion with additional support and evidence as discussed above.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.