Preview
MATHEW M. LAKOTA
Sugerior Court of California
1900 Oro Darn Blvd. E #12-300 F
‘F County of Butte
Oroville, CA 95966 l
L MARZUZUIQ L
E E
530-533-4444
D EéKimben;
Flener,Clzrk D
i
SUPERIOR COURT CALIFORNIA
\oooQoxmawNH
OF
COUNTY OF BUTTE
DOUGLAS JOHNSTON § Case No: 137736
Plaintiff §
_______________ §
MATHEW M. LAKOTA §
Judgment Creditor §
§ JUDGMENT CREDIT OR’S
§ MOTION TO RECONSIDER
§
§
vs. §
§
§ Date: 4-17-19
§ Time: 9:00 a.m.
NORTH VALLEY 4 WHEEL DRIVE § Dept: TBD
Judgment Debtors
NNMNNNNNNHPHPHHHHHHHh-d
§ Judge: Glusman
OOQQMLWNHOQDOOQQKIl-5UJNHO
Attached: Declaration of Mathew Lakota
JUDGMENT CREDITOR’ S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT'S DECISION
Notice of Motion
to Judgment Debtor, Tovi Brown
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 17, 2019 at 9:00 a.m., in the above court,
Judgment Creditor, Mathew M. Lakota, will move the Court to Reconsider its Order of
March 6, 2019.
o
Judgment Creditofis Motion t0 Reconsider Page ~1-
.
>—l
Introduction
[Q
DJ
1. Judgment Creditor, Mathew M. Lakota, filed an Enforcement of Wage Order
-l>~
(“EWO”) against Judgment Debtor, Tovi Brown on February 7, 2019.
U'I
2. Timely, Tovi Brown filed a Claim of Exemption with this court, in opposition .
O\
to the EWO.
\1
3. Timely, Mathew M. Lakota, filed an Opposition to the Claim of Exemption and
0° the matter was scheduled for hearing on March 6, 2019 before this Court.
\O 4. As is the usual practice of this Court, the Court issued a Tentative Ruling on
the March 5, 2019.
5. The Tentative Ruling was in favor of Tovi Brown and thereafter Ordered that
$200 per pay period would be deductedfrom her salary and forwarded to the Sheriff for
I
dispersal to Lakota.
6. Further, the Tentative Ruling Ordered that all funds currently in the possession
of the Sheriff be dispersed to Lakota.
7. Tovi Brown did not call the Court for oral argument on the Tentative and
Lakota did not receive a telephone call from Tovi Brown or the court asking for oral
NNNNMNNNNHHHi-lplb-IHHHP-l
argument on the
mQOm-wP-OmOOQOM-b-wNv-do
Tentative Ruling.
8. On March 6, 2019 and without Lakota in appearance, the Court called the
matter and heard oral arguments from Tovi Brown, ex parte.
'
9. Thereafter, the Court modified it’s Tentative Ruling to the $200 per pay period
to Lakota and only $1000 of the current amount held by the Sheriff to be sent to Lakota.
10. Notice of the Decision was thereafter mailed to Lakota on March 8, 2019
which created a response date by March 23, 2019 for Lakota to file this Motion.
Judgment Croditor's Motion to Reconsider Page -2-
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
With Arguments and Authorities
Statement of the Law
\Oookll-QDJNH
11. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008, the Judgment
Creditor may seek Reconsideration of the Decision this Court made from the decision of
the Court on March 6, 2019, based on a change of circumstance the Court should not
have made at the hearing.
12. The Judgment Debtor, Tovi Brown, had a Judgment filed against her by the
California Labor Commission for wages owed from services performed by Douglas
Johnston.
13. The facts of the Judgment filed in this Court are Res Judicata and have neven
been appealed by Tovi Brown. The Judgment is for services performed by an Employee,
Douglas Johnston.
14. Tovi Brown is not entitled to a Claim of Exemption pursuant to California
Code of Civil Procedure
NMNNNMNNNHF-‘HHHHMD-lb-lr-l
Section 706.051(c)(2);
“(b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), the portion of the
judgment debtor’s earnings that the judgment debtor or the judgment
debtor’s
mQQM-b-wwwowoom-bwwwo
family support in whole or in part by the judgment debtor is
exempt from levy under this chapter.” _
“(c) The exemption provided in subdivision (b) is not available if
any of the following exceptions applies:”
(2) The Debt was incurred for personal services rendered by an
employee or former employee of the judgment debtor.”
15. This Judgment is, without controversy, a debt that is specific to Section
706.051(c)(2). Douglas Johnston was an employee of the Tovi Brown; a finding of a
labor claim was properly entered against her by the Labor Commission; a judgment was
filed in this court by the labor commission; and no party ever appealed that judgment.
Judgment Creditor's Motion to Reconsider Page -3-
16. Therefore, by law, Tovi Brown is not entitled to a Claim of Exemption and
the Claim must be denied.
The Tentative Ruling and the Hearing
\000\IO\U1-|>~UJl\Jr—l
17. The matter was properly before this Court for a decision on the Opposition to
the Claim of Exemption filed by Tovi Brown.
l8. On March 5, 2019, the Court issued a published Tentative Ruling to the
court’s website. The Tentative Ruling denied the Opposition to the Claim of Exemption
and Ordered that Tovi Brown pay over to the Sheriff $200 per pay period and that all
monies now held by the Sheriff would be dispersed to Mathew M. Lakota.
19. Tovi Brown did not telephone the court and ask to be heard on the Tentative
Ruling and did not telephone the Judgment Creditor to inform him of her desire to be
heard either.
20. Despite no telephone Calls from Tovi Brown, the Court took oral argument
from Brown and modified it’s Tentative Ruling. The Judgment Creditor did not appear
NMNNNNNMNn-awr-ardv-Ii-dh-Iv-lt-Av-l
for the hearing.
mQamAwm~o©00QomJ>wroHo
Argument and Authorities
21. The Court is bound by the Rules of Court at Rule 3.1308(a)(1) states, “. ...oral
argument must be permitted only if a party notifies all other parties and the Court by 4:00
p.m. on the cornt day before the hearing of the parties intention to appear. A party must
notify all other parties by telephone or in person.”
22. Further, Rule 3.1308(a)(1), states, “[t]he tentative ruling will become the
ruling of the court if the court has not directed oral argument by its tentative ruling and -
notice of intent to appear has not been given.”
Judgment Creditor's Motion t0 Reconsider Page -4-
23. It is well settled law in California that the Court shall not hold an ex parle
hearing without proper notice to all parties and then, in only very specific circumstances.
This hearing is not one of those circumstances.
24. Thus, a wrongful set of changed circumstances allows the Judgment Creditor
to ask this Court for Reconsideration on it’s Order of March 6, 2019.
\OOOQQUILDJNH
25. Further, this Court routinely holds this litigant to a special overview of his
filing looking to admonish him for a frivolous filing. Therefore, the Judgment Creditor
cannot afford to have a wrongful decision used against him in the future.
Prayer
THEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiff prays this Court GRANT the
Judgment Creditor’s Motion and Reconsider and Reverse his decision in the Opposition
to Tovi Brown’s Claim of Exemption.
Dated: March 20, 2019.
NNNNNNNNNMF-Iir-IP-Awr-ar-lHH
Respe submitted,
OO\IO\U14>~Wl\)>-‘O\OOO\IO\LIIJ>UJN>—'O
(-
MatlyllQBkota
Judgment Creditor's Motion to Reconsider Page -5-
DECLARATION OF MATHEW M. LAKOTA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA §
COUNTY OF BUTTE §
\OOOQQUI-b-WNp-l
Mathew M. Lakota declares as follows:
My name is Mathew M. Lakota. I am above the age of eighteen and am fully
capable and confident to make this declaration. Every statement contained herein is true
and within my personal knowledge.
I am the Judgment Creditor in Johnston v. North Valley 4 Wheel
Drive, et a1, with a cause number of 137736.
I have read the attached Motion and believe the Motion to be true
and correct as it was written Pro Se.
I believe the Court has erred in Denying the Opposition to Tovi
Brown’s Claim of Exemption.
The Judgment in this case was from a finding of the California
Labor Commission and is for wages due for services performed by Douglas
Johnston
NNNNNNNNMHWHHPdMPd-lhd
as an employee of Tovi Brown.
This judgment has never been
OO\IO\UI-I>Wl\)'-'O\OO°\IO\UIJ>UJN)—IO
appealed by any party and is final.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best
of my ability.
Dated: March 20, 2019
Ma akota
Judgment Creditor's Motion to Reconsider Page ~6-
PROOF OF SERVICE
b)
I am a citizen of the United States and I am a resident of the County of Sonoma. I
am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is
2750 S. 5th Ave. #2 Oroville, California 95965.
\OOO\IO\UIJ>~
On March 20, 2019, I served the foregoing document(s) described as:
Judgment Creditor’s Motion to Reconsider
lO
ll
On the parties below by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope and
12
served same on parties/counsel, addressed as follows:
13
l4
Tovi Brown
15 24 Kimberlee Ln.
Chico, CA 95926
16‘
17
The following is the procedure in which the service of this document was affected:
1s
19
First Class U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid and
20 deposited at the Post Office in Oroville, California.
21
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
22
foregoing is true and correct.
23
24
25
26
27
28
March 20, 2018
M9
Brandie Meinen
Judgment Creditor's Motion t0 Reconsider Page -7-
Preview
MATHEW M. LAKOTA Sugerior Court of California 1900 Oro Darn Blvd. E #12-300 F ‘F County of Butte Oroville, CA 95966 l L MARZUZUIQ L E E 530-533-4444 D EéKimben; Flener,Clzrk D i SUPERIOR COURT CALIFORNIA \oooQoxmawNH OF COUNTY OF BUTTE DOUGLAS JOHNSTON § Case No: 137736 Plaintiff § _______________ § MATHEW M. LAKOTA § Judgment Creditor § § JUDGMENT CREDIT OR’S § MOTION TO RECONSIDER § § vs. § § § Date: 4-17-19 § Time: 9:00 a.m. NORTH VALLEY 4 WHEEL DRIVE § Dept: TBD Judgment Debtors NNMNNNNNNHPHPHHHHHHHh-d § Judge: Glusman OOQQMLWNHOQDOOQQKIl-5UJNHO Attached: Declaration of Mathew Lakota JUDGMENT CREDITOR’ S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT'S DECISION Notice of Motion to Judgment Debtor, Tovi Brown PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 17, 2019 at 9:00 a.m., in the above court, Judgment Creditor, Mathew M. Lakota, will move the Court to Reconsider its Order of March 6, 2019. o Judgment Creditofis Motion t0 Reconsider Page ~1- . >—l Introduction [Q DJ 1. Judgment Creditor, Mathew M. Lakota, filed an Enforcement of Wage Order -l>~ (“EWO”) against Judgment Debtor, Tovi Brown on February 7, 2019. U'I 2. Timely, Tovi Brown filed a Claim of Exemption with this court, in opposition . O\ to the EWO. \1 3. Timely, Mathew M. Lakota, filed an Opposition to the Claim of Exemption and 0° the matter was scheduled for hearing on March 6, 2019 before this Court. \O 4. As is the usual practice of this Court, the Court issued a Tentative Ruling on the March 5, 2019. 5. The Tentative Ruling was in favor of Tovi Brown and thereafter Ordered that $200 per pay period would be deductedfrom her salary and forwarded to the Sheriff for I dispersal to Lakota. 6. Further, the Tentative Ruling Ordered that all funds currently in the possession of the Sheriff be dispersed to Lakota. 7. Tovi Brown did not call the Court for oral argument on the Tentative and Lakota did not receive a telephone call from Tovi Brown or the court asking for oral NNNNMNNNNHHHi-lplb-IHHHP-l argument on the mQOm-wP-OmOOQOM-b-wNv-do Tentative Ruling. 8. On March 6, 2019 and without Lakota in appearance, the Court called the matter and heard oral arguments from Tovi Brown, ex parte. ' 9. Thereafter, the Court modified it’s Tentative Ruling to the $200 per pay period to Lakota and only $1000 of the current amount held by the Sheriff to be sent to Lakota. 10. Notice of the Decision was thereafter mailed to Lakota on March 8, 2019 which created a response date by March 23, 2019 for Lakota to file this Motion. Judgment Croditor's Motion to Reconsider Page -2- MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT With Arguments and Authorities Statement of the Law \Oookll-QDJNH 11. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008, the Judgment Creditor may seek Reconsideration of the Decision this Court made from the decision of the Court on March 6, 2019, based on a change of circumstance the Court should not have made at the hearing. 12. The Judgment Debtor, Tovi Brown, had a Judgment filed against her by the California Labor Commission for wages owed from services performed by Douglas Johnston. 13. The facts of the Judgment filed in this Court are Res Judicata and have neven been appealed by Tovi Brown. The Judgment is for services performed by an Employee, Douglas Johnston. 14. Tovi Brown is not entitled to a Claim of Exemption pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure NMNNNMNNNHF-‘HHHHMD-lb-lr-l Section 706.051(c)(2); “(b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), the portion of the judgment debtor’s earnings that the judgment debtor or the judgment debtor’s mQQM-b-wwwowoom-bwwwo family support in whole or in part by the judgment debtor is exempt from levy under this chapter.” _ “(c) The exemption provided in subdivision (b) is not available if any of the following exceptions applies:” (2) The Debt was incurred for personal services rendered by an employee or former employee of the judgment debtor.” 15. This Judgment is, without controversy, a debt that is specific to Section 706.051(c)(2). Douglas Johnston was an employee of the Tovi Brown; a finding of a labor claim was properly entered against her by the Labor Commission; a judgment was filed in this court by the labor commission; and no party ever appealed that judgment. Judgment Creditor's Motion to Reconsider Page -3- 16. Therefore, by law, Tovi Brown is not entitled to a Claim of Exemption and the Claim must be denied. The Tentative Ruling and the Hearing \000\IO\U1-|>~UJl\Jr—l 17. The matter was properly before this Court for a decision on the Opposition to the Claim of Exemption filed by Tovi Brown. l8. On March 5, 2019, the Court issued a published Tentative Ruling to the court’s website. The Tentative Ruling denied the Opposition to the Claim of Exemption and Ordered that Tovi Brown pay over to the Sheriff $200 per pay period and that all monies now held by the Sheriff would be dispersed to Mathew M. Lakota. 19. Tovi Brown did not telephone the court and ask to be heard on the Tentative Ruling and did not telephone the Judgment Creditor to inform him of her desire to be heard either. 20. Despite no telephone Calls from Tovi Brown, the Court took oral argument from Brown and modified it’s Tentative Ruling. The Judgment Creditor did not appear NMNNNNNMNn-awr-ardv-Ii-dh-Iv-lt-Av-l for the hearing. mQamAwm~o©00QomJ>wroHo Argument and Authorities 21. The Court is bound by the Rules of Court at Rule 3.1308(a)(1) states, “. ...oral argument must be permitted only if a party notifies all other parties and the Court by 4:00 p.m. on the cornt day before the hearing of the parties intention to appear. A party must notify all other parties by telephone or in person.” 22. Further, Rule 3.1308(a)(1), states, “[t]he tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if the court has not directed oral argument by its tentative ruling and - notice of intent to appear has not been given.” Judgment Creditor's Motion t0 Reconsider Page -4- 23. It is well settled law in California that the Court shall not hold an ex parle hearing without proper notice to all parties and then, in only very specific circumstances. This hearing is not one of those circumstances. 24. Thus, a wrongful set of changed circumstances allows the Judgment Creditor to ask this Court for Reconsideration on it’s Order of March 6, 2019. \OOOQQUILDJNH 25. Further, this Court routinely holds this litigant to a special overview of his filing looking to admonish him for a frivolous filing. Therefore, the Judgment Creditor cannot afford to have a wrongful decision used against him in the future. Prayer THEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiff prays this Court GRANT the Judgment Creditor’s Motion and Reconsider and Reverse his decision in the Opposition to Tovi Brown’s Claim of Exemption. Dated: March 20, 2019. NNNNNNNNNMF-Iir-IP-Awr-ar-lHH Respe submitted, OO\IO\U14>~Wl\)>-‘O\OOO\IO\LIIJ>UJN>—'O (- MatlyllQBkota Judgment Creditor's Motion to Reconsider Page -5- DECLARATION OF MATHEW M. LAKOTA STATE OF CALIFORNIA § COUNTY OF BUTTE § \OOOQQUI-b-WNp-l Mathew M. Lakota declares as follows: My name is Mathew M. Lakota. I am above the age of eighteen and am fully capable and confident to make this declaration. Every statement contained herein is true and within my personal knowledge. I am the Judgment Creditor in Johnston v. North Valley 4 Wheel Drive, et a1, with a cause number of 137736. I have read the attached Motion and believe the Motion to be true and correct as it was written Pro Se. I believe the Court has erred in Denying the Opposition to Tovi Brown’s Claim of Exemption. The Judgment in this case was from a finding of the California Labor Commission and is for wages due for services performed by Douglas Johnston NNNNNNNNMHWHHPdMPd-lhd as an employee of Tovi Brown. This judgment has never been OO\IO\UI-I>Wl\)'-'O\OO°\IO\UIJ>UJN)—IO appealed by any party and is final. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my ability. Dated: March 20, 2019 Ma akota Judgment Creditor's Motion to Reconsider Page ~6- PROOF OF SERVICE b) I am a citizen of the United States and I am a resident of the County of Sonoma. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 2750 S. 5th Ave. #2 Oroville, California 95965. \OOO\IO\UIJ>~ On March 20, 2019, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: Judgment Creditor’s Motion to Reconsider lO ll On the parties below by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope and 12 served same on parties/counsel, addressed as follows: 13 l4 Tovi Brown 15 24 Kimberlee Ln. Chico, CA 95926 16‘ 17 The following is the procedure in which the service of this document was affected: 1s 19 First Class U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid and 20 deposited at the Post Office in Oroville, California. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 22 foregoing is true and correct. 23 24 25 26 27 28 March 20, 2018 M9 Brandie Meinen Judgment Creditor's Motion t0 Reconsider Page -7-