Alejandro Franco v. Michael Gennaco et al

Filing 291

ORDER Adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 289 ; Sustaining Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor's Objections to Defendant/Judgment-Debtor Chang's Claim of Exemption from Wage Garnishment; Overruling Plaintiff/Judgment-Cre ditor's Objections to Defendant/Judgment-Debtor Cordova's Claim of Exemption from Wage Garnishment; Denying Doc # 284 (Defendant/Judgment-Debtors' Request for Hearing on Claims of Exemption from Wage Garnishment) by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. See document for details. (gk)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10 ALEJANDRO FRANCO,
11
Plaintiff,
12

v.

13 MICHAEL GENNACO et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. LA CV 09-00893-VBF-FFMx
ORDER Adopting the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation;
Sustaining Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor’s
Objections to Defendant/Judgment-Debtor
Chang’s Claim of Exemption from Wage
Garnishment;
Overruling Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor ’s
Objections to Defendant/Judgment-Debtor
Cordova’s Claim of Exemption from Wage
Garnishment;
Denying Doc #284 (Defendant/JudgmentDebtors’ Request for Hearing on Claims of
Exemption from Wage Garnishment)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, all the records
and files herein, and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) Re: Plaintiff/Creditor’s
Objections to Defendants/ Debtors’ Claims of Exemption – Wage Garnishments. No party
has filed any written objections to the well-reasoned R&R. The Court concurs with and
accepts the findings, conclusions and recommendations of Magistrate Judge Mumm.

The objections of plaintiff/creditor to defendants/debtors’ claims of exemption
are sustained in part and denied in part as follows:

1 (1)

Plaintiff/creditor’s objections to defendant/debtor Davie Chang’s claim of exemption

2

under California Civil Code section 706.051 are SUSTAINED. Twenty-five percent

3

of Chang’s disposable earnings per pay period is subject to levy under the earnings

4

withholding order at issue.

5
6 (2)

Plaintiff/creditor’s objections to defendant/debtor Kris Cordova’s claim of

7

exemption under Section 706.051 are DENIED.

8
9

The Court found this matter to be suitable for disposition without oral argument.

10 Accordingly, the Request for Hearing on Claim of Exemption from Wage Garnishments
11 filed by defendants/judgment-debtors Chang, Cordova & Pimental (Doc #284) is DENIED.
12
13
14 DATED:

August 11, 2015

15
VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2