CLAIM OF EXEMPTION
CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Cynthia P. Smith, Dept. A (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
Nordby Construction Company v. Signorello Winery 23CV000838
CLAIM OF EXEMPTION
APPEARANCE REQUIRED for hearing on the merits.
By Minute Order of June 3, 2026, the Court continued the matter, allowed briefing on notice and timing issues raised by Defendant/Judgment Debtor at the hearing, and stated it would post a Tentative Ruling regarding the notice and timing issues. Three issues were raised: (1) the hearing must be held within 30 days of notice (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.570, subd. (a)); (2) not less than 10 days’ notice must be given (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.570, subd. (b); and (3) Sixteen court days’ notice must also be given. On June 4, 2026, Judgment Debtor filed an Objection to the Creditor’s Opposition to Claim of Exemption, addressing the third issue identified in the preceding sentence.
As to the first point, while the default rule is that the hearing must be held within 30 days of notice, an express exception exists where the hearing is “continued by the court for good cause.” (§ 703.570, subd. (a).) Here, the hearing was properly noticed within 30 days of filing, on May 21, 2026. By Minute Order of May 21, 2026, the Court continued the hearing to allow the claim of exemption to be filed, which is ordinarily the levying officer’s responsibility (see § 703.550, subd. (a)). The Court implicitly found good cause for the continuance.
Moreover, prior to the continued hearing on June 3, 2026, the Judgment Creditor filed a Proof of Service demonstrating that it had properly served its Objection to the Claim of Exemption on the Levying Officer, which statutorily triggered the Levying Officer’s duty to file the Claim of Exemption. Thus, given that the Judgment Creditor has shown the procedural defect was not the fault of the Judgment Creditor, the Court confirms that good cause existed for the continuance. The additional continuance from June 3, 2026 to June 10, 2026 was for good cause given the parties’ agreement thereto. (See 6/3/26 Minute Order.)
As to the second point, 17 days’ notice was given here, and therefore, the notice complies with section 703.570, subdivision (b). (See 5/4/2026 Proof of Service.)
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?”
As to the third point, Judgment Debtor cites to Code of Civil Procedure, section 1005, subdivision (b)(3) in support of the proposition that 16 court days’ notice is also required. The section provides “[w]ritten notice shall be given, as prescribed in subdivisions (b) and (c) [including the 16 court day requirement], for the following motions: ... (3) Notice of Hearing for Claim of Exemption under Section 706.105.” Section 706.105 falls under Chapter 5 regarding Wage Garnishments. Section 706.105, subdivision (e)(1), in turn, requires notice of a hearing on an objection to a claim of exemption made under section 706.051 to be served on the judgment debtor and levying officer “[a]t the time prescribed by subdivision (b) of Section 1005.” (See also Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (a)(3).) Section 706.051 is also under Chapter 5 regarding Wage Garnishments.
Here, however, the claim of exemption is not made under sections 706.051 or 706.105 (regarding wage garnishments), but rather is made under sections 703.520 and 704.220 (regarding bank levies). (See Claim of Exemption (attached to 5/21/26 Judgment Creditor’s Submittal), § 7 [citing 704.220 and 700.160], and made on form EJ-160 as opposed to WG-006.) Thus, the 16 court day notice requirement under section 1005, subdivision (b)(3) does not appear applicable. Instead, section 703.570’s notice provisions—discussed above regarding the second point—is the only governing notice provision. (Cf.
Ahart, Cal. Practice Guide, Enforcing Judgments & Debts (The Rutter Group 2025), Ch. 6F-5, § 6:1197-98 [discussing 16 court day notice requirement for a hearing on creditor’s opposition to debtor’s claim of exemption from garnishment] and id., Ch. 6E-4, § 6:901 [discussing general 10 day notice requirement for hearing on creditor’s opposition to debtor’s claim of exemption and noting that “[t]his period is longer where the creditor opposes claims of exemption from wage garnishments; see ¶ 6:1198 ff.”].)
In addition to the Court’s independent research, Judgment Creditor also persuasively argues this point through its 6/8/26 Response.
Adrian Ortiz v. Harvest Inn Team, LLC 25CV000565
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is CONTINUED to July 10, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept B.
**at 9:30 a.m.** Christine Butler et al v. Anchor Health LLC 24CV000278
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order. The matter is set for a Final Approval Hearing on October 09, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A. The June 10, 2026 Case Management Conference is VACATED.
4