LVNV Funding LLC vs. Abrams

at the deposition and any dispute among the parties will have to be resolved through a future motion to the extent they are unable to resolve it through meet-and-confer efforts. Petitioner shall give notice of the deposition date to Dina Nimri. Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

6. Worldwide Credit Co, LLC vs. Wade Kirk 2025-01521959 Based on the acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment in full plaintiff and judgment creditor Worldwide Credit Co, LLC filed on August 31, 2026, the court has not prepared a tentative ruling on the merits. All counsel are ordered to appear for the hearing to address whether the motion to vacate is moot or otherwise has been withdrawn.

7. Squires Lumber Company vs. Mcgee Contracting Inc. 2023-01300636 CONTINUED to September 17, 2026, pursuant to August 31, 2026 Minute Order 8. Walker vs. Shaw 2020-01144299 CONTINUED to be heard in Department C21 on November 6, 2026.

9. LVNV Funding LLC vs. Abrams 2023-01331686 Before the court is the hearing on a claim of exemption presented by judgment debtor J J Abrams (Debtor) and the opposition to claim of exemption filed by judgment creditor LVNV Funding, LLC (Creditor). As set forth more fully below, the claim of exemption beyond the automatic exemption of Code of Civil Procedure section 706.050 is DENIED. The earnings withholding order served on Debtor’s employer Mesa International Technologies, Inc. and currently in effect with respect to Debtor’s earnings is $1,020.05 per month (or $470.79 every two weeks).

The amount of the earnings withholding order is 20 percent of Debtor’s monthly take home pay and reflects the automatic exemption set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 706.050, subdivision (a). Debtor seeks a claim of exemption on the entire amount of the earnings withholding order which he claims is needed to support himself or his family. Under Code of Civil

Procedure section 706.051, subdivision (b), “the portion of the judgment debtor’s earnings that the judgment debtor proves is necessary for the support of the judgment debtor or the judgment debtor’s family supported in whole or in part by the judgment debtor is exempt from levy” under the Wage Garnishment Law. The court must take into account all income available to the Debtor and his family, including the spouse’s separate earnings. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 703.115.) Here, Debtor failed to prove the $1,020.05 subject to the withholdings order is necessary for his support and/or the support of his family.

Based on Debtor’s financial statement, the stated monthly income of Debtor and his spouse (excluding his mother-in-law) exceeds monthly expenses by $567.90. If his mother-in-law’s income is included, it exceeds monthly expenses by $1,838.90. In addition, the storage, pets and miscellaneous household expenses are not adequately supported or justified. Finally, there is no showing that the numerous other credit card and other debt has been reduced to a judgment and subject to enforcement. Debtor has not met his burden to establish the amount being withheld meets the standard of necessary for support.

The claim of exemption is therefore DENIED. Counsel for Creditor is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

10. Jhumra vs. Orange County Global Medical Center, Inc. 2025-01483496 Before the court is the motion to designate case complex filed by plaintiffs Khusro Jhumra by and though his guardian ad litem Maliha Siddiqui, and Maliha Siddiqui. As more fully set forth below, the motion is DENIED. The designation of a case as complex is governed by California Rules of Court, rule 3.400, et seq. Rule 3.400(a) provides, a “‘complex case’ is an action that requires exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties, and counsel.”

Rule 3.400(b) establishes a nonexclusive list of factors the court must consider in determining whether a case is complex. The factors include “whether the action is likely to involve: [¶] (1) Numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues that will be time-consuming to resolve; [¶] (2) Management of a large number of witnesses or a substantial amount of documentary evidence; [¶] (3) Management of a large number of separately represented parties; [¶] (4) Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other