This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/07/2019 at 01:56:33 (UTC).

KEN MENG VS ROWLAND HEIGHTS MOBILE ESTATES

Case Summary

On 05/05/2017 KEN MENG filed a Property - Other Eviction lawsuit against ROWLAND HEIGHTS MOBILE ESTATES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9291

  • Filing Date:

    05/05/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Eviction

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

CHEUNG DIANE

MENG KEN

Defendants

OLISAN INC

ROWLAND HEIGHTS MOBILE ESTATES

Not Classified By Court

TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorney

BERGSTROM ESQ. EMILY D.

 

Court Documents

Unknown

4/12/2018: Unknown

Notice

5/7/2019: Notice

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/07/2019
  • Notice (NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL); Filed by ROWLAND HEIGHTS MOBILE ESTATES (Defendant); OLISAN, INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • Unknown Document Type; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • Remittitur - Other

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • Ntc to Prty re fee Clk's Transcpt; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2018
  • Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2018
  • Designation of Record on Appeal; Filed by ROWLAND HEIGHTS MOBILE ESTATES (Defendant); OLISAN, INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2018
  • Ntc to Attorney re Notice of Appeal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by KEN MENG (Plaintiff); DIANE CHEUNG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • Notice of Appeal; Filed by KEN MENG (Plaintiff); DIANE CHEUNG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
39 More Docket Entries
  • 06/02/2017
  • Points and Authorities; Filed by ROWLAND HEIGHTS MOBILE ESTATES (Defendant); OLISAN, INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2017
  • Declaration; Filed by ROWLAND HEIGHTS MOBILE ESTATES (Defendant); OLISAN, INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2017
  • Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by ROWLAND HEIGHTS MOBILE ESTATES (Defendant); OLISAN, INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2017
  • Notice; Filed by OLISAN, INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2017
  • Demurrer; Filed by ROWLAND HEIGHTS MOBILE ESTATES (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2017
  • Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by ROWLAND HEIGHTS MOBILE ESTATES (Defendant); OLISAN, INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2017
  • Declaration; Filed by ROWLAND HEIGHTS MOBILE ESTATES (Defendant); OLISAN, INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2017
  • Points and Authorities; Filed by ROWLAND HEIGHTS MOBILE ESTATES (Defendant); OLISAN, INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by KEN MENG (Plaintiff); DIANE CHEUNG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: KC069291    Hearing Date: March 09, 2020    Dept: J

HEARING DATE: Monday, March 9, 2020

NOTICE: OK

RE: Meng, et al. v. Rowland Heights Mobile Estates, et al. (KC069291)

______________________________________________________________________________

 

HEARING ON PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT DEBTOR DIANE CHEUNG’S CLAIM OF EXEMPTION

Responding Party: Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors Rowland Heights Mobile Estates dba Rowland Heights Mobile Estates and Olisan, Inc.

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor Diane Cheung’s Claim of Exemption is DENIED.

Background

Plaintiffs Ken Meng (“Meng”) and Diane Cheung (“Cheung”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege that in July 2012, Cheung closed escrow for a mobilehome located at 1441 Paso Real Ave Spc #133 in Rowland Heights, California 91748. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Rowland Heights Mobile Estates dba Rowland Heights Mobile Estates (“RHME”) and RHME’s property management company, Defendant Olisan, Inc. (“Olisan”) have denied Plaintiffs the right to peacefully assemble in the mobilehome park and to distribute and circulate information and instituted unlawful detainer proceedings against Plaintiff in retaliation for exercising these rights.

On May 5, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against RHME, Olisan and Does 1-10 for:

  1. Retaliatory Eviction (Civil Code § 1942.5)

  2. Violation of Civil Code § 798.51 (Right of Homeowners to Communicate in Park)

  3. Violation of Civil Code § 798.51 (Right of Homeowners to Use Park Clubhouse)

  4. Preliminary and Permanent Injunction

  5. Declaratory Relief

On July 12, 2017, the court sustained RHME’s and Olisan’s demurrers without leave to amend, and ordered the action dismissed with prejudice. On July 19, 2017, the judgment was filed. On August 23, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal. On August 25, 2017, RHME and Olisan filed their notice of entry of judgment and mail-served same that day.

On December 6, 2017, the court granted RHME’s and Olisan’s motion for attorney’s fees, in the amount of $19,336.25. On January 1, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. On June 27, 2019, the remittitur was filed.

On October 1, 2019, an Order Determining Claim of Exemption of Bank Levy was filed, wherein the court denied Judgment Debtors’ Claim of Exemption and directed the levying officer to release 70% of any funds held to Judgment Creditor.

On January 9, 2020, a writ of execution was issued.

Discussion

Defendants/Judgment Creditors RHME and Olisan (“Judgment Creditors”) oppose the Claims of Exemption submitted by Plaintiffs/Judgment Debtor Diane Cheung (“Cheung”).

TIMELINESS: To oppose a claim of exemption, within 10 days after service of the notice of claim of exemption (or, ordinarily within 15 days if the levying officer served the notice by mail, see CCP § 684.120), the judgment creditor must filed with the court a notice of opposition to the claim of exemption (Judicial Council Form EJ-170), a notice of motion for an order determining the claim of exemption and notice of hearing on claim of exemption (Judicial Council Form EJ-175) and file copies of each of these documents with the levying officer. (CCP § 703.550.) If the copies of the judgment creditor’s notice of opposition and notice of motion are not timely filed with the levying officer, the levying officer must immediately release the property claimed exempt. (CCP § 703.550.)

At least 10 days prior to the hearing (longer if service is by mail), the judgment creditor must serve on the exemption claimant (and on the judgment debtor if different from the claimant) the Notice of Hearing on Claim of Exemption, and a copy of the Notice of Opposition to Claim of Exemption. (CCP § 703.570(b).)

The hearing on the exemption claim must be held no later than 30 days from the date the notice of motion was filed with the court, unless the court continues the hearing for good cause. (CCP §703.570(a).) Unless otherwise ordered by the court, property claimed to be exempt must be released if an exemption is not determined within the time provided by Section 703.570. (CCP § 703.580(f).)

Here, the Notice of Filing Claim of Exemption was mailed on February 5, 2020. The Notice of Hearing on Claim of Exemption and Notice of Opposition to Claim of Exemption, Etc. were timely served on the levying officer and judgment debtors on February 18, 2020 and filed with the court that day. The hearing is also being heard within 30 days from the date of the notice of the motion.

BURDEN OF PROOF: The exemption claimant bears the burden of proof at the hearing. (CCP § 703.580(b).) “[E]xemption statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of the debtor.” (Independence Bank v. Heller (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 84, 88.)

The Claim of Exemption and any attached Financial Statement and Notice of Opposition to Claim of Exemption constitute the pleadings for the hearing. (CCP § 703.580(a).) The court may permit amendments thereto in the interest of justice. (Id.)

The judgment creditor must include both of the following: (a) an allegation either (1) that the property is not exempt under the enforcement of judgments law (“EJL”) or other statute relied upon or (2) that the equity in the property claimed to be exempt is greater than the amount provided by the exemption and (b) a statement of the facts necessary to support the allegation. (CCP § 703.560.)

The court’s decision may be based solely on the information in the claim of exemption and notice of opposition, of the court may continue the hearing for production of other oral or documentary evidence. (CCP § 703.580.)

At the outset, the court DENIES Judgment Creditors’ Request for Judicial Notice in full.

Here, Cheung claims, in Section 4 of her Claim of Exemption, that the following property is exempt: “[b]ank funds, home, motor vehicle, household items, tithing (charity).”

Section 8 of Judgment Debtors’ respective Claims of Exemption lists additional property Judgment Debtors claim to be exempt: “a motor vehicle, the proceeds of an execution sale of a motor vehicle, or the proceeds of insurance or other indemnification for the loss, damage, or destruction of a motor vehicle” and “all other property of the same type owned by the judgment debtor, either alone of in combination with others, is: home, bank.” Judgment Creditor here, however, is seeking recourse through a bank levy.

Under CCP § 703.520(b)(6), Cheung is required to submit “[a] statement of the facts necessary to support the claim.” Section 5 of the Claim of Exemption references CCP §§ 703.140(b)(1)(2)(3) and 704.170 as the basis for the exemptions. CCP § 703.140, however, pertains to federal bankruptcy and Cheung has not asserted anywhere that she has filed for bankruptcy. CCP § 704.170 pertains to social services aid. Cheung has provided no evidence that any of Cheung’s income is from a charitable organization or fraternal benefit society, nor has she fulfilled her burden under CCP § 703.080 to trace any such funds into her bank account.

Cheung has not cited CCP § 703.530 as a basis for exemption, but has attached a Financial Statement and represent that the money is necessary for their support and the support of their dependents.

However, the only “facts which support this claim” are listed in the Financial Statements and Cheung’s reference to “[h]ome for residence, car for work, household items for living, and tithing as donations.” Cheung has not attached any further documentation. The information contained on Cheung’s Financial Statement, moreover, is suspect. Cheung lists a monthly income of $1,800.00 and Meng does not report any income; although Judgment Debtors’ only monthly income is apparently Cheung’s $1,800.00, Judgment Debtors have set forth total monthly expenses of $1,892.00.

Cheung’s claim of exemption, then, is DENIED.