Three Lakes Design v. Savala

Filing 61

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 9/1/201 GRANTING 58 Motion for an earnings withholding order against the spouse of the judgment debtor. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 and California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 695.020 and 706.109, an earnings withholding order shall be issued against the earnings of Gilbert Anthony Savala III, the spouse of judgment debtor Gina Savala. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Case 2:17-cv-01757-MCE-CKD Document 61 Filed 09/02/21 Page 1 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THREE LAKES DESIGN,

12

Plaintiff-Judgment
Creditor,

13

v.

14

No. 2:17–cv–01757–MCE–CKD (PS)
ORDER
(ECF No. 58)

GINA SAVALA,

15

Defendant-Judgment
Debtor.

16
17

Before the court is a renewed motion by plaintiff-judgment creditor Three Lakes Design

18
19

for an earnings withholding order against the spouse of defendant-judgment debtor Gina Savala. 1

20

(ECF No. 58.) The motion is brought as part of Three Lakes’ ongoing effort to collect the

21

judgment entered against Ms. Savala in this copyright infringement case. A hearing on the

22

motion was held remotely on September 1, 2021, at which plaintiff’s counsel Mark Serlin

23

appeared for Three Lakes. (ECF No. 60.) Defendant Savala did not appear, despite several

24

efforts to notify her of the proceeding. (Id.; ECF No. 59; Docket text entries dated 8/20/2021 and

25

8/25/2021.) For the following reasons, the court GRANTS the motion.

26
27
28

1

Because defendant is self-represented and the motion is related to collection of judgment, the
matter is referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rules 302(c)(11) & (21) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
1

Case 2:17-cv-01757-MCE-CKD Document 61 Filed 09/02/21 Page 2 of 7
1

BACKGROUND

2

In August 2019, the court granted default judgment for Three Lakes, awarding it $115,000

3

in statutory damages, plus post-judgment interest, for Ms. Savala’s infringement of 23

4

photographs copyrighted to Three Lakes. (ECF Nos. 31 (findings and recommendations), 35

5

(order adopting findings and recommendations), 36 (judgment), 47 (amended judgment 2).) The

6

court found that Three Lakes 3 adequately alleged that Ms. Savala used its copyrighted images on

7

her social media platforms and websites without permission. (ECF No. 31 at 5.) Specifically, the

8

amended complaint alleged that between April and July 2017 Ms. Savala reposted Three Lakes’

9

images for profit for her own business, Candy Couture Shop. (ECF No. 19 at 3-28.) Judgement

10

was entered against “Defendant Gina Savala, individually, and her marital community, dba Candy

11

Couture Shop.” (ECF Nos. 46, 47, hereinafter “Copyright Judgment.”)
A writ of execution to enforce the judgment was issued on August 30, 2019 (ECF No. 43),

12
13

and on September 10, 2019, Three Lakes first moved for an earnings withholding order against

14

Ms. Savala’s husband, Gilbert Anthony Savala III (ECF No. 44). For most of the litigation of this

15

case, the court was unable to successfully deliver mail to Ms. Savala’s address of record.

16

However, both Ms. and Mr. Savala appeared in person at the hearing on the earnings withholding

17

motion on October 9, 2019 before the undersigned. (ECF No. 45.) At the hearing, Ms. Savala

18

informed the court and opposing counsel that she and her husband were about to file for

19

bankruptcy and stated that they had only learned of the hearing through their bankruptcy attorney.

20

The undersigned accordingly continued the hearing so that Three Lakes’ counsel could confer

21

with the Savalas’ bankruptcy counsel. (Id.)

22

On November 8, 2019, Three Lakes notified the court that the action was automatically

23

stayed due to the Savalas filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on October 17, 2019. (ECF No. 48,

24

Notice of Stay; In re: Gina Luisa Savala and Gilbert Anthony Savala, III, No. 19-26462 (U.S.

25

2

26
27
28

After Three Lakes moved for attorneys’ fees, the judgment was amended to reflect that Ms.
Savala owed $115,000 in statutory damages, post-judgment interest, plus $27,496.00 in attorneys’
fees and $561.80 in costs. (ECF Nos. 46, 47.)
3

Three Lakes was founded in April 2016 for the purpose of designing and selling jewelry and
supporting autism research. (ECF No. 19 ¶¶ 7, 9.)
2

Case 2:17-cv-01757-MCE-CKD Document 61 Filed 09/02/21 Page 3 of 7
1

Bankr. E.D. Cal.).) An independent review of the bankruptcy proceedings indicates that in

2

December 2020, the Savalas received a discharge of their debts; however, in an underlying

3

adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court the Savalas and Three Lakes stipulated that only

4

$11,000 of the Copyright Judgment would be deemed non-dischargeable. Three Lakes Design v.

5

Savala, No. 19-26462, Adv. Pro. No. 20-2005 (U.S. Bankr. E.D. Cal.), ECF No. 83 at 2. Under

6

the stipulation—which the bankruptcy court approved (ECF No. 58.3 at 3-4)—the Savalas were

7

to repay the $11,000 debt via consecutive monthly payments of $500. (Adv. Pro. No. 20-2005,

8

ECF No. 83 at 2.)

9

Repayment broke down somewhere along the way because on March 1, 2021, in this court

10

Three Lakes sought and obtained an updated writ of execution reflecting that $10,056.59

11

remained due on the Copyright Judgment. (ECF No. 52.) Several months later, on July 23, 2021,

12

Three Lakes renewed its motion for an earnings withholding order against Mr. Savala. (ECF

13

No. 58.)

14

As with the earlier motion, Three Lakes’ motion is brought under California Code of Civil

15

Procedure § 706.109 as incorporated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69. The accompanying

16

declaration by Three Lakes’ counsel Mark Serlin avers that Ms. Savala has made only “partial

17

payment” on the non-discharged portion of the Copyright Judgment, which remains unsatisfied.

18

(ECF No. 58.3 ¶ 4.) At the hearing, counsel indicated that Three Lakes is seeking to collect

19

$11,000 to $13,000, after factoring in costs and fees incurred in the collection efforts. Counsel

20

further avers in the declaration that Mr. Savala has been married to defendant-judgment debtor

21

Ms. Savala for “over ten years” based on Ms. Savala’s admissions in sworn bankruptcy

22

schedules, her testimony in a bankruptcy deposition, and a recent telephone conversation with

23

Mr. Savala. (Id. ¶ 3.)

24

DISCUSSION

25
26

A. Wage Withholding Law & Procedure
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69, a money judgment is enforced by a writ of

27

execution, and the procedure on execution and in supplementary proceedings in aid of execution

28

“must accord with the procedure of the state in which the court is located,” except to the extent a
3

Case 2:17-cv-01757-MCE-CKD Document 61 Filed 09/02/21 Page 4 of 7
1

federal statute applies. Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1).

2

California law provides that a judgment creditor may satisfy a money judgment against

3

the judgment debtor and/or the community property interest of the spouse as well as obligations

4

owed to the other spouse that are community property. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 695.020(a)-(b),

5

699.710, 700.140.

6

California’s Wage Garnishment Law “provides the exclusive judicial procedure by which

7

a judgment creditor can execute against the wages of a judgment debtor[.]” Cal. State

8

Emps.’Ass’n v. California, 198 Cal. App. 3d 374, 377 (1988); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 706.010–

9

706.154. The Wage Garnishment Law sets out detailed steps for requesting a withholding order,

10

notifying the employer and the judgment debtor, and asserting and resolving claims for

11

exemptions.
Where a judgment creditor seeks to withhold the judgment debtor’s own wages, a court

12
13

order is not required to start the process. The judgment creditor simply applies ex parte directly

14

to the “levying officer”—that is, the sheriff or marshal in the county where the judgment debtor’s

15

employer is to be served—for an earnings withholding order. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 706.102(a);

16

see id. § 701.121 (specifying required contents of application); Judicial Council form WG-001

17

(Application for Earnings Withholding Order). The levying officer then issues the order, serves it

18

on the employer, and serves notice on the judgment debtor. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code

19

§§ 706.102(a), 706.122 (contents of notice to employee/judgment debtor), 706.125 (contents of

20

order).

21

However, “[a]n earnings withholding order may not issue against earnings of the

22

judgment debtor’s spouse unless a court order is obtained upon noticed motion.” Cal. Code Civ.

23

Proc. § 706.109 (emphasis added). Thus, the order Three Lakes seeks by this motion is an

24

intermediary order that it will then present, along with its application for an earnings withholding

25

order, to the appropriate levying officer who will then issue the withholding order itself. See

26

Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. Penta Denver, LLC, 2015 WL 3830691, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 19,

27

2015) (“[T]he Wage Garnishment Law . . . requires a court order before a judgment creditor may

28

apply for the withholding order itself with the appropriate levying officer.”).
4

Case 2:17-cv-01757-MCE-CKD Document 61 Filed 09/02/21 Page 5 of 7
1

Except for requiring court authorization to seek an earnings withholding order, it appears

2

that the remainder of the Wage Garnishment Law procedures apply with equal force to

3

withholding wages of a judgment debtor’s spouse. Thus, the application for the earnings

4

withholding order and the withholding order itself will account for the automatic statutory

5

withholdings cap that at least 75% of an employee’s disposable earnings are exempt from

6

earnings withholding orders. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 706.050 (setting maximums), 706.011

7

(“Disposable earnings” means the portion of an individual’s earnings that remains after deducting

8

all amounts required to be withheld by law.”); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1673 (federal restriction on

9

garnishment). And upon notice of the issuance of the forthcoming earnings withholding order,

10

the spouse may claim a further exemption for “the portion of the . . . earnings that the judgment

11

debtor [or, in this scenario, the spouse] proves is necessary for the support of the [spouse’s]

12

family supported in whole or in part by the [spouse.]” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 706.051(b). To

13

claim this exemption for “necessaries,” the judgment debtor/employee spouse must file with the

14

levying officer “an original and one copy of (1) the judgment debtor’s claim of exemption and

15

(2) the judgment debtor’s financial statement.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 706.105(b). These

16

procedures will also be explained in the notice the levying officer will provide to the employee.

17

See id. § 706.122.

18

The filing of any claim of exemption then triggers a series of deadlines for the judgment

19

creditor to oppose the exemption claim and to request a court hearing, if desired. Id.

20

§§ 706.105(c)(3), (d), (e). If the judgment creditor does not timely oppose, the levying officer

21

will inform the employer that the earnings withholding order is either terminated or modified,

22

depending on the degree of exemption claimed. Id. § 706.105(f).

23

At the current preliminary stage in the wage garnishment procedure, the court understands

24

its role as ensuring that the alleged spouse is truly the judgment debtor’s spouse and that the

25

earnings are community property that can be used to pay the judgment debtor’s debt. See, e.g.,

26

Campbell v. Simmonds, 2005 WL 896293, at *1-2 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2005) (affirming trial

27

court’s order allowing wage garnishment against judgment debtor’s spouse after finding that they

28

were married before tort occurred).
5

Case 2:17-cv-01757-MCE-CKD Document 61 Filed 09/02/21 Page 6 of 7
B. Community Property

1
2

Under California law, subject to certain exceptions not relevant to this case, “all property,

3

real or personal, wherever situated, acquired by a married person during the marriage while

4

domiciled in this state is community property.” Cal. Fam. Code § 760. “Community property is

5

subject to enforcement of a money judgment as provided in the Family Code.” Cal. Civ. Proc.

6

Code § 695.020(a).

7

Section 910(a) of the Family Code provides: “Except as otherwise expressly provided by

8

statute, the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during

9

marriage, regardless of which spouse has the management and control of the property and

10

regardless of whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt or to a judgment for the debt.”

11

Cal. Fam. Code § 910(a). Section 911(a) provides in relevant part: “The earnings of a married

12

person during marriage are not liable for a debt incurred by the person’s spouse before marriage.”

13

Cal. Fam. Code § 911(a). And Section 903(b) provides that a debt is “incurred” in the case of a

14

tort “at the time the tort occurs.” Cal. Fam. Code § 903(b).
“Under the above statutes, whether [Mr. Savala’s] wages could be subject to garnishment

15
16

for [Ms. Savala]’s debt depend[s] on whether [s]he incurred the debt before their marriage.”

17

Campbell, 2005 WL 896293, at *2. Ms. Savala’s infringing acts occurred between April and July

18

2017, and according to plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration, the Savalas have been married since at

19

least 2011. Given Ms. Savala’s failure to appear or otherwise respond to this motion, the court

20

declines to require further substantiation of the duration of the Savalas’ marriage. Thus, the court

21

finds that Ms. Savala’s debt was incurred while married to Mr. Savala. See Petrella v. Metro-

22

Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663, 671 (2014) (“Each time an infringing work is reproduced or

23

distributed, the infringer commits a new wrong. Each wrong gives rise to a discrete claim that

24

accrues at the time the wrong occurs.” (alterations omitted)). And Mr. Savala’s wages, as

25

community property, can be garnished in satisfaction of that judgment.

26

////

27

////

28

////
6

Case 2:17-cv-01757-MCE-CKD Document 61 Filed 09/02/21 Page 7 of 7
1
2
3

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for an earnings withholding order against the spouse of the judgment
debtor (ECF No. 58) is GRANTED; and

4

2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 and California Code of Civil Procedure

5

§§ 695.020 and 706.109, an earnings withholding order shall be issued against the

6

earnings of Gilbert Anthony Savala III, the spouse of judgment debtor Gina Savala.

7

Dated: September 1, 2021
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12

19.1757.three lakes

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7