DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
CVCV19-0191680·shasta·Civil·Civil
CONTINUED

EATMON, ET AL VS. LOCKWOOD, ET AL

Motion for Earnings Withholding Order

Hearing date
May 18, 2026
Department
63
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jul 20, 2026

Motion type

Other

Parties

PlaintiffDaniel Lockwood
PlaintiffRoseanne Lockwood
DefendantJason Eatmon
DefendantChristine Eatmon

Ruling

CASE NUMBER: CVCV19-0191680 Tentative Ruling on Notice of Motion and Motion for Earnings Withholding Order: Judgment Creditors’ Daniel Lockwood and Roseanne Lockwood seek an order to issue an earnings withholding order against the Judgment Debtor’s spouse, pursuant to CCP section 706.109. Judgment Debtor Jason Eatmon was timely served by mail with the motion, and was additionally served by substitute service. Spouse Christine Eatmon was timely served by personal service.

Christine Eatmon has requested a continuance of the motion to allow additional time to seek counsel. Judgment Creditors oppose the request on the grounds that the request for continuance is procedurally improper, fails to establish good cause for a 60-day continuance, and fails to oppose the underlying Motion on the merits. Under the circumstances, the Court finds that granting a continuance would be in the interest of justice. This matter is continued to Monday, July 20, 2026, 8:30 a.m. in Department 63 for hearing on the Notice of Motion and Motion for Earnings Withholding Order. Absent further clearing showing of good cause, the Court is unlikely to grant further continuances. Opposition and Reply deadlines will be per CCP § 1005(b) and be based on the new hearing date.

IN RE PARODI

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share