Claim of Exemption
JUNE 1, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 16 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________
02:00 PM LINE 8 24-CLJ-06582 LVNV FUNDING LLC VS. JOSEPH FETUU
LVNV FUNDING LLC MARTIN WEINGARTEN JOSEPH FETUU
Claim of Exemption
TENTATIVE RULING:
On April 24, 2026, plaintiff LVNV Funding LLC (“LVNV”), the judgment creditor herein, filed an opposition to defendant and judgment debtor Joseph Fetuu’s claim of exemption. (See Opposition to Claim of Exemption).
California Code of Civil Procedure, section 706.050 provides, in pertinent part, that garnishment of the wages of an employee is limited to the lesser of 20 percent of the disposable earnings of an individual judgment debtor for any workweek subject to levy (except for certain high earners). The term “disposable earnings” is defined as “the portion of an individual’s earnings that remains after deducting all amounts required to be withheld by law.” Code Civ. Proc., § 706.011, subd. (a).
The burden of proof is on the judgment debtor to demonstrate that the property to be levied on is exempt in whole or in part. Code Civ. Proc., § 703.580. Mr. Fetuu has submitted a financial statement. LVNV has a generalized objection but does not identify any particular deduction as “not required by law” or object to any specific expense as excessive or propose an amount that could be reasonably garnished.
It is of note that Mr. Fetuu’s savings are less than the current automatic exemption for funds held in a bank account, which is $2,244. Code Civ. Proc., § 704.220, subd, (a), (e); Jud. Council, Form EJ-156, at p. 2 [July 21, 2025]. Accordingly, the Court finds that all of Mr. Fetuu’s savings are exempt.
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?”
Mr. Fetuu has demonstrated and the Court finds that Mr. Fetuu’s income is generally necessary to support himself. Code Civ. Proc., § 706.051. However, Mr. Fetuu claims $900 a month for transportation and $300 per month for installment payments, while failing to provide detailed information in Item 5 as required. It appears from his narrative, he has a car payment of some kind and there are certain deductions reflected on his paychecks. But absent additional information provided at the hearing and based on the information provided, it appears that Mr. Fetuu could pay $10.00 per pay period towards the outstanding debt.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES-in-part plaintiff/judgment creditor’s Opposition to defendant/judgment debtor’s claim of exemption. The Court ORDERS Mr. Fetuu’s wages to be garnished in the amount of $10.00 per weekly pay period, for a total of $40.00 per month.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.
JUNE 1, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 17 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, plaintiff’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court. The court alerts the parties to revised Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) (amended effective January 1, 2024) regarding the wording of proposed orders.