American Express National Bank vs. Chien

indicate that Petersin does not have actual, personal knowledge of the facts stated above.

Additionally, Khor directly refutes pertinent statements made by Petersin. Khor declares that CBH and RSM maintained separate Chase bank accounts during the MSA period and maintained accounting records, including QuickBooks records maintained by bookkeepers; that URP had authorized signatory access to the CBH and RSM bank accounts during the MSA period, as well as to banking information; that Khor did not use CBH or RSM funds from URP patients or URP operations to pay personal expenses for himself or Gwyneth Khor; and that Khor did not transfer disputed URP-related proceeds from CBH or RSM into his personal bank account. (Khor Decl., ¶¶ 9, 10, 12, 13.)

Based on the evidence submitted, Plaintiff does not show that it is more likely than not that it will obtain a judgment against Defendant Khor for its claim of breach of contract. As such, Plaintiff fails to show the probable validity of its claim for breach of contract against Defendant Khor.

The Court OVERRULES all objections (Objection Nos. 1-6) made by Defendant Khor.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice as the material are not relevant to the determination of the issues on this Application. A court may deny a request for judicial notice on the ground that the material is not relevant to the determination of the issues. (State Compensation Ins. Fund v. ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 422, 442-443.)

Defendant Khor to give notice.

110 American Express Claim of Exemption - Wage Garnishment National Bank vs. Chien

23-01330698 Defendant Nelson Chien’s Claim of Exemption is GRANTED for the reasons set forth below.

The party claiming an exemption bears the burden of proof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.580(b).) The exemption statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of the claimant. (Independence Bank v. Heller (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 84, 88.)

“Money in a judgment debtor's deposit account that is not otherwise exempt under this chapter is exempt to the extent necessary for the support of the judgment debtor and the spouse and dependents of the judgment debtor.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.225.)

When the claimant claims that property is exempt as necessary for the support of the judgment debtor and the spouse and dependents of the judgment debtor, the claim of exemption shall include a financial statement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.530(a). Here, Defendant has provided the required financial statement.

That financial statement indicates that Defendant has three dependents: his spouse and two minor children. His gross income is $10,000.00 per month and his monthly take home pay is $6,000.00. His savings account has a balance of $10,000.00 and his monthly expenses total to $10,200.00 for necessities such as rent, food, utilities, medical and dental payments, insurance, school/childcare, transportation, and installment payments. Defendant avers that he has no other funds available to pay for basic necessities.

A letter from JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. dated December 11, 2025 to the levying officer regarding the Post Judgment Writ of Execution confirms that the balances of Defendant’s accounts were $5,929.95 and $10,873.41 as of the date of that letter.

In light of Defendant’s financial statement and Defendant’s monthly expenses, the Court finds that the money in the subject JPMorgan Chase Bank accounts

are necessary for the support of Defendant and his dependents, including his spouse who does not bring in any income. Defendant has demonstrated that the money in those accounts are necessary for the support of himself and his dependents given that his monthly expenses exceed his monthly take home income.

Upon the Court’s execution of a formal Order Determining Claim of Exemption, the Clerk shall transmit a certified copy of this order to the levying officer. (Code Civ. Proc., §703.580(e).)

Moving party to give notice.