This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/10/2019 at 06:51:52 (UTC).

LILIAN DEMONTEVERDE HOATS VS ROSA M. RAMIREZ

Case Summary

On 04/24/2017 LILIAN DEMONTEVERDE HOATS filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against ROSA M RAMIREZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MASTER CALENDAR. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6263

  • Filing Date:

    04/24/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Norwalk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MASTER CALENDAR

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

HOATS LILIAN DEMONTEVERDE

Defendant

RAMIREZ ROSA M.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

HOATS LILIAN DEMONTEVERDE LAW OFFICE OF

CUZZOLINA JAMES D.

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal

7/11/2018: Request for Dismissal

Substitution of Attorney

4/8/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Abstract of Judgment?Civil and Small Claims

4/12/2019: Abstract of Judgment?Civil and Small Claims

Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest

5/17/2019: Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest

Writ of Execution

5/20/2019: Writ of Execution

Writ of Execution

5/29/2019: Writ of Execution

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/29/2019
  • Writ of Execution ((Orange)); Filed by LILIAN DEMONTEVERDE HOATS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • Writ of Execution ((Los Angeles)); Filed by LILIAN DEMONTEVERDE HOATS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest; Filed by LILIAN DEMONTEVERDE HOATS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Filed by LILIAN DEMONTEVERDE HOATS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by LILIAN DEMONTEVERDE HOATS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2018
  • Request for Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F; (Order to Show Cause; Off Calendar) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • Minute order entered: 2017-12-21 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2017
  • Supplemental Declaration (OF LILIAN DEMONTEVERDE HOATS RE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT ROSA RAMIREZ; ); Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff in Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2017
  • Supplemental Declaration

    Read MoreRead Less
57 More Docket Entries
  • 05/22/2017
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl (PARTY SERVED ROSE M. RAMIREZ ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by LILIAN DEMONTEVERDE HOATS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by LILIAN DEMONTEVERDE HOATS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • Proof of Service (CASE MANAGEMENT SERVED ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2017
  • Notice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2017
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2017
  • Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2017
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC066263    Hearing Date: February 27, 2020    Dept: SEC

HOATS v. RAMIREZ

CASE NO.: VC066263

HEARING: 02/27/2020

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

#9

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Plaintiff LILLIAN DEMONTEVERDE HOATS’ motion for assignment order and for order restraining judgment debtor is DENIED.

II. Defendant ROSA M. RAMIREZ’s claim of exemption is GRANTED.

Defendant to give notice.

Plaintiff obtained a Judgment against Defendant on December 12, 2017 in the amount of $54,385.00. Plaintiff asserts that the judgment remains unsatisfied, and seeks an assignment order pursuant to CCP §708.510 as to payments due or to become due to the judgment debtor stemming from QDRO distributions payable to Defendant by her former spouse. According to the QDRO, Defendant is set to receive $59,127.94 in QDRO from her ex-husband’s retirement savings plan. (See Hoats Decl., Ex. 3.)

“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 or to a receiver … all or part of a right to payment due or to become due, whether or not the right is conditioned on future developments….” (CCP §708.510(a).) In determining whether an assignment order should issue, the Court should consider (1) the reasonable requirements of a judgment debtor who is a natural person and any dependents on the judgement debtor; (2) other payments the judgment debtor must make in satisfaction of other judgments and wage assignments; (3) the amount remaining to be due on this judgment; and (4) the amount of the right to payment that is being assigned to the creditor. (CCP §708.510(c).) In conjunction with an application for an assignment order, a judgment creditor may seek a restraining order preventing the judgment debtor from assigning or otherwise disposing of the right assigned to creditor under CCP §708.510. (CCP §708.520(a).)

Here, Plaintiff has served and filed a noticed motion which shows that the judgment is not satisfied, and there is right to future payments. In Opposition, Defendant argues that the QDRO distribution is exempt from enforcement pursuant to 29 USCA §1056(d), and has filed a Claim of Exemption to be heard concurrently with Plaintiff’s Motion for Assignment Order.

CCP §708.550 indicates that “The judgment debtor may claim that all or a portion of the right to payment is exempt from enforcement of a money judgment by application to the court on noticed motion filed not later than three days before the date set for the hearing on the judgment creditor’s application for assignment order.” (Id.) Defendant has filed a Claim of Exemption and argues that the entire QDRO is exempt under 29 USCA §1056(d), which states, “(1) Each pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated…. [¶] except that paragraph (1) shall not apply if the order is determined to be a qualified domestic relations order. Each pension plan shall provide for the payment of benefits in accordance with the applicable requirements of any qualified domestic relations order.” (emphasis added.) (Id.) Here, it is undisputed that Defendant is entitled to payment of her ex-husband’s pension distributions per QDRO.

Pursuant to CCP §704.115, “(b) All amounts held, controlled, or in process of distribution by a private retirement plan, for the payment of benefits as an annuity, pension, retirement allowance, disability payment, or death benefit from a private retirement plan are exempt. (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), where an amount described in subdivision (b) becomes payable to a person and is sought to be applied to the satisfaction of a judgment for child, family, or spousal support against that person: (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the amount is exempt only to the extent that the court determines under subdivision (c) of Section 703.070.” (emphasis added.) (Id.) Here, Plaintiff is not looking to apply Defendant’s QDRO payments to the satisfaction of a judgment for child, family, or spousal support against Defendant. Rather, Plaintiff seeks the subject attachment Order in satisfaction of a Judgment for breach of contract. Defendant’s QDRO payments are exempt.

Case Number: VC066263    Hearing Date: January 02, 2020    Dept: SEC

HOATS v. RAMIREZ

CASE NO.: VC066263

HEARING: 01/02/20

#9

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff LILLIAN DEMONTEVERDE HOATS’ motion for assignment order and for order restraining judgment debtor is CONTINUED to Thursday, February 27, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. SE-C.

Moving Party to give notice.

“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 or to a receiver … all or part of a right to payment due or to become due, whether or not the right is conditioned on future developments….” (CCP §708.510(a).) In determining whether an assignment order should issue, the Court should consider (1) the reasonable requirements of a judgment debtor who is a natural person and any dependents on the judgement debtor; (2) other payments the judgment debtor must make in satisfaction of other judgments and wage assignments; (3) the amount remaining to be due on this judgment; and (4) the amount of the right to payment that is being assigned to the creditor. (CCP §708.510(c).) In conjunction with an application for an assignment order, a judgment creditor may seek a restraining order preventing the judgment debtor from assigning or otherwise disposing of the right assigned to creditor under CCP §708.510. (CCP §708.520(a).)

However, CCP §708.550 indicates that “The judgment debtor may claim that all or a portion of the right to payment is exempt from enforcement of a money judgment by application to the court on noticed motion filed not later than three days before the date set for the hearing on the judgment creditor’s application for assignment order.” (emphasis added). (Id.) Here, no Claim of Exemption by way of Noticed Motion has been FILED with the Court. Rather, Judgment Debtor/Defendant has attached a Motion for Claim of Exemption in her Opposition to Judgement Creditor/Plaintiff’s instant Motion. Judgement Debtor’s “Claim of Exemption” has not been properly noticed. In the interests of justice, the Court will CONTINUE this matter as indicated above in order to permit Judgement Debtor the ability to file a Motion for Claim of Exemption in compliance with the rules of civil procedure. If necessary, Judgement Debtor may appear ex parte to seek an Order to Shorten Time on her Motion for Claim of Exemption after it has been properly FILED and SERVED.