N/A
judgment creditor Gouvis Engineering Consulting Group, Inc. (Creditor). Initially, the court notes Amir Deihimi (Deihimi) and Core Structure, Inc. (Core) are defendants and judgment debtors on the judgment entered in this action.
The third party claim procedures may not be utilized by parties to the action. (Ahart, Cal. Prac. Guide: Enf. J. & Debts (The Rutter Group 2025) at ¶ 16:1605 citing Commercial & Farmers Nat’l Bank v. Hetrick (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 158, 134.) In an effort to avoid this rule, Deihimi and Core assert the third party claim as a “Trustee.” They contend the funds in the levied accounts are Core’s employees’ payroll funds and related withholdings, and they therefore are asserting the claim on behalf of their employees, who are third parties. Specifically, they claim $14,427 of the levied funds constitute tax/payroll withholdings from Core’s employers and $58,418 constitutes wages earned by Core’s employees on the date of levy.
The authorities Deihimi and Core cite in support of their argument, however, fail to establish Core holds the funds at issue as a trustee for its employees. Moreover, assuming Core could be deemed to be a trustee of these funds with standing to bring this third party claim, Deihimi and Core have failed to present any evidence to establish any of the facts necessary to support this argument. At the hearing, Deihimi and Core bear the burden of proof to present admissible evidence establishing every factual predicate necessary to support their argument. (Ahart, Cal. Prac. Guide Enf. J. & Debts (The Rutter Group, June 2025 Update) ¶ 6:1687.1, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 720.360; Dickson v. Mann (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 935, 945; Oxford Street Properties, LLC v. Rehabilitation Assocs., LLC (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 296, 307; Whitehouse v. Six Corp. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 527, 533
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Moreover, Deihimi and Core will need to present further authorities to convince the court their trustee argument is a viable one because the authorities they presented in the claim did not do so. Based on the foregoing, the tentative ruling is to DENY the third party claim. Creditor’s counsel will be ordered to give notice of this ruling if the parties submit.
8. Richey vs. Roberts OFF CALENDAR pursuant to the June 4, 2026 minute order.
06CC11271 9. Gamo vs. J Star Auto Group, Inc. 2017-00942930 Please see notice above regarding oral argument on this motion/petition Before the court is the motion by defendants J Star Auto Group, Inc. (JStar) and Jared Merrell (collectively, Defendants) for an award of attorney fees following the remittitur issued by the Court of Appeal on October 17, 2025. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is DENIED.
On December 15, 2022, the court entered judgment in favor of Defendants and against plaintiff Tirso Gamo (Plaintiff) on all causes of action. During this litigation, Defendants were jointly represented by Vivoli Saccuzzo, LLP. Plaintiff filed the case on September 11, 2017. On July 20, 2018, JStar served requests for admissions, set one, on Plaintiff, which included request nos. 1-54. Plaintiff served responses on August 27, 2018. On January 18, 2019, JStar served requests for admissions, set two, on Plaintiff, which included request nos. 55-71. Plaintiff served responses on to those requests on October 10, 2019. Plaintiff denied some of these various requests for admissions (and also withdrew some admissions that were initially made).
Following trial, Defendants filed this motion seeking to recover cost of proof fees and expenses under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420, and also prevailing defendant attorney fees and costs under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). Defendants argued Plaintiff’s CLRA claim were inextricably intertwined with his other claims such that there was no need to allocate Defendants’ fees and expenses as between Plaintiff’s CLRA claims and his other claim, or between fees recoverable for cost of proof and fees recoverable under the CLRA. As originally filed, Defendants sought $321,728 in fees plus a multiplier of 1.5 for a total fee award of $482,592.
The trial court denied the motion in its entirety, finding the unilateral fee provision appliable to Plaintiff’s financial elder abuse claim barred Defendants from recovering their fees under any other statutory provision. Defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed in part and affirmed in part, finding the unilateral fee provision applicable to Plaintiff’s financial elder abuse claim barred Defendants’ attorney fees request under the CLRA, but that unilateral provision did not bar Defendants from recovering cost of proof expenses and fees if they made all necessary showings. Because the trial court did not otherwise address the merits of