Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02739/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02739-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:0077 Securities Fraud

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAMER SALAMEH, an individual, et

al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 09cv2739-GPC(BLM)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION GRANTING

IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

MOTION FOR ORDER

DETERMINING CLAIMS OF

EXEMPTION

[Dkt. No. 465.]

vs.

TARSADIA HOTEL, a California

Corporation, et. al.,

Defendants.

On July 9, 2015, Judgment Creditors 5th Rock, LLC and MKP One, LLP filed

a motion for an order determining claims of exemption of Judgment Debtors Alexis

Cosio, Michele Curtis, Dale Curtis, Aleksey Kats, Diana Kats, Cesar Mota, Danon

Slinkard, Benjamin Steigerwalt and Eden Steigerwald. (Dkt. No. 465.) A hearing was

held before Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major on August 6, 2015. (Dkt. No. 474.) 

At the hearing Judgments Debtors requested additional time to file a response and

provide additional supporting evidence. (Dkt. No. 475.) On August 13, 2015,

Judgment Debtors filed an opposition to the motion for order determining claim of

exemption. (Dkt. No. 477.) Declarations from Alexis Cosio, Cesar Mota, Eden

Steigerwalt and Dale Curtis were attached to the opposition. (Id.) On August 20,

2015, Judgment Creditors filed a reply. (Dkt. No. 480.) On September 4, 2015,

Magistrate Judge Major issued a report and recommendation re: motion for order

- 1 - [09cv2739-GPC(BLM) ]

Case 3:09-cv-02739-GPC-BLM Document 486 Filed 10/14/15 Page 1 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

determining claims of exemptions. (Dkt. No. 484.) In the order, the Magistrate Judge

recommends that the Court deny the claims of exemption filed by Alexis Cosio, Cesar

Mota, Aleksey and Diana Kats, Dale and Michele Curtis, Danon Slinkard and

Benjamin Steigerwalt; and grant the claimof exemption filed by Eden Steigerwalt. (Id.

at 20.) Objections were not filed by the deadline of September 18, 2015. 

Background

On March 22, 2011, DistrictJudge Dana M. Sabraw granted Defendants’ motion

to dismiss Plaintiff’s second amended complaint with prejudice. (Dkt. No. 158.) On

March 22, 2011, judgment was entered against Plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 159.) On October

7, 2013, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. (Dkt. No. 224.) On

October 12, 2012, the case was transferred to the undersigned judge. (Dkt. No. 215.) 

On July 31, 2014, the Court granted Defendants’ 5th Rock, LLC, and MKP One, LLP’s 

(collectively “Judgment Creditors”) motion for attorney’s fees. (Dkt. No. 245.) On

August 22, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s order. (Dkt. No.

246.) 

Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay enforcement ofjudgment pending appeal without

posting a supersedeas bond on April 20, 2015. (Dkt. No. 402.) The Court denied

Plaintiff’s motion on May 19, 2015, but granted a temporary stay of thirty days to allow

Plaintiffs to post a supersedeas bond. (Dkt. No. 411.) Plaintiffs did not post a

supersedeas bond within the thirty-day period, and on June 17, 2015, the Ninth Circuit

denied Plaintiff’s emergency motion to stay enforcement of the district court’s

judgment pending appeal without posting a supersedeas bond. (Dkt. No. 419.) On

June 29, 2015, certain Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion to stay proceedings with a

partial bond. (Dkt. No. 461.) The Court denied the ex parte motion to stay proceedings

with a partial bond on July 20, 2015. (Dkt. No. 468.) 

On March 3, 2015 and April 7, 2015, Judgment Creditors filed writs of execution

against numerous Plaintiffs. (Dkt. Nos. 373, 398.) On May 7, 2015, Judgment

Creditors initiated bank levies. (Dkt. Nos. 407, 412-417.) On May 20, 2015, certain

- 2 - [09cv2739-GPC(BLM) ]

Case 3:09-cv-02739-GPC-BLM Document 486 Filed 10/14/15 Page 2 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Judgment Debtors filed claims of exemption. (Dkt. No. 465-3, Minassian Decl. at 4-

25 .) 1

On July 9, 2015, Judgment Creditors filed its opposition to the claims of

exemption, and motion to the court for an order determining claim of exemption. (Dkt.

No. 465-1.) On August 13, 2015, the Judgment Debtors filed an opposition. (Dkt. No.

477.) The report and recommendation wasfiled on September 4, 2015. (Dkt. No. 484.) 

A. Standard of Review of Magistrate Judge’s Order

The district court’s role in reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and

recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the district

court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which

objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

orrecommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. Under thisstatute, “the district

judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003); see Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district

court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other

standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”).

B. Paid Earnings Exemption

Exemption claimants Alexis Cosio, Cesar Moto, Aleksey and Diana Kats, and

Danon Slinkard seek an exemption based on the paid earnings exemption. (Dkt. Nos.

465-3, Minassian Decl. at 4-7; 12-19.) 

Because the exemption laws are designed to facilitate the debtor’s financial

rehabilitation and have the effect of shifting social welfare costs from the community

to judgment creditors, the exemption statutesshould be construed, so far as practicable,

to the benefit of the judgment debtor. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Waters, 166 Cal. App.

4th Supp. 1, 8 (2008)(citation omitted). “[E]xemptions are wholly statutory and cannot

The page numbers are based on the CM/ECF pagination. 

1

- 3 - [09cv2739-GPC(BLM) ]

Case 3:09-cv-02739-GPC-BLM Document 486 Filed 10/14/15 Page 3 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

be enlarged by the courts.” Id. at 8. 

Under section 704.070, debtors can claim exemptions for “[p]aid earnings that

can be traced into deposit accounts . . . .” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 704.070(b). “Paid

earnings” are defined as “compensation payable by an employer to an employee for

personalservices performed by such employee, whether denominated as wages, salary,

commission, bonus, or otherwise”, id. § 706.011(b), and “that were paid to the

employee during the 30-day period ending on the date of the levy.” Id. § 704.070(a)(2). 

The exemption claimant bears the burden of tracing the exempt funds in the

levied account to wages paid by the debtor’s employer, and should provide the court

with bank statements that show the relevant earning payments within the thirty day

pre-levy period. See Cal. Civ. Proc Code § 703.080(b); see also Franco v. Gennaco,

No. LA CV 09-893 VBF-FFMx, 2015 WL 1383525, at *4-6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2015)

(debtors who claimed exemptions under section 704.070 provided the court with bank

statementsshowing their account balances on the date of the levy, and the dates and the

amount of earnings payment from their employers within the 30-day pre-levy period);

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Waters, 166 Cal. App. 4 Supp. 1, 6-7 (2008) (debtor who th

sought exemption under section 704.070 provided bank statements that showed a

balance on the date of the levy and the dates and amounts of direct payroll deposits

from the debtor’s employer during the 30-day period ending on the date of levy). The

court must apply the “lowest intermediate balance principle” to determine the amount

of exempt funds in a deposit account, unless the parties demonstrate that another

method of tracing “would better serve the interests of justice and equity under the

circumstances of the case.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 703.080(c).

1. Alexis Cosio

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny her claim of exemption

because she has not established she is entitled to the paid earnings exemption. Her

claim of exemption states that the money is exempt under sections 704.070(a) and (b)

because “the money is paid earnings from my employment.” (Dkt. No. 465-3,

- 4 - [09cv2739-GPC(BLM) ]

Case 3:09-cv-02739-GPC-BLM Document 486 Filed 10/14/15 Page 4 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Minassian Decl. at 4-5.) In her opposition, her declaration states that the funds levied

are subject to section § 704.070(a)-(b) asthey consist of paid earning paid to her by her

employer during the 30 day period ending on the date of the levy. (Dkt. No. 477-1,

Cosio Decl.) 

Judgment Debtors appear to contend that the only proof necessary to seek an

exemption is that paid earning can be traced into a deposit account and submit copies

of their paychecks; however, tracing involves demonstrating the “lowest intermediate

balance” which requires submission of bank statements. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §

703.080.

2

Cosio attaches her paycheck to show that money was deposited into her deposit

account but she has failed to provide any evidence about the funds in her deposit

account at the time of levy was executed, the date the money was levied, and the

account balance during the thirty days preceding the levy. Therefore, the Court is

unable to determine the applicable 30 day period to determine how much of the levied

funds are entitled to protection. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 703.080; Franco, 2015 WL

1383525 at 4-6 (debtors who claimed exemptions under 704.070 provided the court

with bank statements). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation that Cosio’s claim of exemption be DENIED. 

2. Cesar Moto

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny his claim of exemption

because he has not established he is entitled to the paid earnings exemption. Moto’s

Section 703.080 entitled “Tracing exempt funds” provides, 2

(a) Subject to any limitation provided in the particular exemption, a

fund that is exempt remains exempt to the extent that it can be traced

into deposit accounts or in the form of cash or its equivalent.

(b) The exemption claimant has the burden of tracing an exempt fund.

(c) The tracing of exempt funds in a deposit account shall be by

application of the lowest intermediate balance principle unless the

exemption claimant or the judgment creditor shows that some other

method of tracing would better serve the interests of justice and equity

under the circumstances of the case. 

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 703.080.

- 5 - [09cv2739-GPC(BLM) ]

Case 3:09-cv-02739-GPC-BLM Document 486 Filed 10/14/15 Page 5 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

claim of exemption states that the “money is paid earnings from my employment.” 

(Dkt. No. 465-3, Minassian Decl. at 16-17.) In his opposition, he attaches his paycheck

showing the source of the levied funds. (Dkt. No. 47, Moto Decl. at 4-6.) However,

similar to Cosio, Moto failed to provide a bank statement or any other evidence to

establish how much money was in the account when it was levied, the date the money

waslevied and the account balance during the relevant thirty days. Thus, he has failed

to establish that the exemption applies to him. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Moto’s claim of exemption be DENIED. 

3. Aleksey and Diana Kats

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny the Kats’ claims of

exemption. In their claims of exemption, they state that the “money is paid earnings

from Diana Kats’ job and deposited directly into the account. Aleksey Kats is her

husband.” (Dkt. No. 465-3, Minassian Decl. at 12-15.) In the opposition, they contend

that the levied funds consisted of exempt earning under section 704.070 and are

traceable asthey are direct deposits. Besidestheir statementsin a declaration, Aleksey

and Kats do not provide any documentation to support their exemption claim. 

Therefore, they have not demonstrated that they are entitled to an exemption. As such,

the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Aleksey and Diana

Kats’ claims of exemption be DENIED. 

4. Danon Slinkard

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Slinkard’s claim of

exemption for failing to comply with the statutory requirement. He claims an

exemption because it is “where my earnings are deposited” and the “money is paid

from my employment” (Dkt. No. 465-3, Minassian Decl. at 18-19.) Slinkard provides

no documentation to support his exemption claim. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS

the report and recommendation that Slinkard’s claim of exemption be DENIED.

C. Retirement Accounts

Judgement Debtors Dale and Michele Curits seek an exemption based on the

- 6 - [09cv2739-GPC(BLM) ]

Case 3:09-cv-02739-GPC-BLM Document 486 Filed 10/14/15 Page 6 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

exemption for private retirement plan or profit sharing plan designed and used for

purposes of retirement. (Dkt. Nos. 465-3, Minassian Decl. at 8-11.)

Private retirement accounts are exempt as a private retirement plan or profit

sharing plan designed and used for retirement purposes. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §

704.115(b). Three types of retirement accounts may qualify for exemptions: (1)

3

“[p]rivate retirement plans, including, but not limited to, union retirement plans”; (2)

“[p]rofit-sharing plans designed and used for retirement purposes”; and (3)

“[s]elf-employed retirement plans and individual retirement annuities” included in the

Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Id. § 704.115(a)(1)-(3). Funds in the first two

categories are completely exempt. Century Sur. Co. v. 350 W.A., LLC, Civil No.

05cv1548-L(LSP), 2008 WL 2630959, at *9 (S.D. Cal. June 27, 2008).

To establish that an account is exempt as a private retirement plan under section 

704.115(a)(1) or a profit sharing plan under section 704.115(a)(2), the claimant must

establish two elements. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 703.580(b) (an exemption claimant

bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that the alleged retirement plan is exempt). 

First, the debtor must prove that the retirement plan is “established and maintained by

a corporation.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 704.115(a)(1), (2); Century Sur. Co., 2008 WL

2630959 at *10;see also In re Cheng, 943 F.2d 1114, 1116-17 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding

that retirement benefit plans established by a corporation, which issolely owned by the

debtor, constitute fully exempted “private retirement plans” within the meaning of

California law). Second, the claimant must prove that the plan is “designed and used

for retirement purposes.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 704.115(a)(1), (2); Century Sur. Co.,

2008 WL 2630959 at *10; In re Bloom, 839 F.2d 1376, 1378 (9th Cir. 1988) (section

704.115(a)(1) implicitly requires a claimant to prove that the private retirement plan

is “designed and used for retirement purposes.”). 

California Civil Procedure Code section 704.115 provides that “[a]ll amounts

3

held, controlled, or in process of distribution by a private retirement plan, for the

payment of benefits as an annuity, pension, retirement allowance, disability payment,

or death benefit from a private retirement plan are exempt.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §

704.115(b). 

- 7 - [09cv2739-GPC(BLM) ]

Case 3:09-cv-02739-GPC-BLM Document 486 Filed 10/14/15 Page 7 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In determining whether a private retirement plan is designed and used primarily

for retirement purposes, courts consider many factors but no one is dispositive, but all

must be considered in light of the policy of whether the plan was designed and used for

a retirement purpose. In re Bloom, 839 F.2d at 1379-80. Courts have also considered

the “extent of a debtor’s withdrawals or loans from the plan” and a “debtor’s subjective

intent in deciding whether the plans have a retirement purpose.” In re Rucker, 570 F.3d

1155, 1160 (9th Cir. 2009). Courts also consider evidence as to how the plan was

managed by the judgment debtor. Century Sur. Co., 2008 WL 2630959 at 10. 

1. Dale and Michele Curtis 

Claimants Dale and Michele Curtis filed a claim exemption stating that the two 4

accounts under the account name Curtis Michael Pension Profitsharing Plan, Inc.

contain “benefits derived from private retirement plan or profit sharing plan designed

and used for purposes of retirement.” (Dkt. No. 465-3, Minassian Decl. at 9, 11.) In

the opposition, Dale Curtis states that the private retirement account was set up by a

private employer, a corporation, not by him acting on his own. (Dkt. No. 477-4, Curtis

Decl. ¶ 5.) The account was set up by San Diego Pension Consultants, Inc. as a Money

Purchase Pension Plan for the corporation, his employer, Curtis Michael Appraisal, Inc. 

 (Id.)

The Magistrate Judge concluded that while the Judgment Debtors demonstrated

that the plan was established by a corporation, they failed to satisfy the second element

of establishing that the plan is designed and used for retirement purposes. Judgment

Debtors present a conclusory allegation that the profit sharing plan is designed and

used for retirement purposes but fail to provide any documents to show how the plan

was designed and used for retirement purposes. As noted by the Magistrate Judge,

“there is no evidence showing how the plan is managed and used by the Curtises, such

Michele Curtis was not a named plaintiff in the underlying judgment; however, 4

under California law, a judgment creditor may enforce a money judgment by levying

the deposit account of the judgment debtor and his spouse. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code

§ 700.160.

- 8 - [09cv2739-GPC(BLM) ]

Case 3:09-cv-02739-GPC-BLM Document 486 Filed 10/14/15 Page 8 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

as bank statements showing deposits, withdrawals, and other account activity or

detailed declarations regarding the use of the funds since the plan was created.” (Dkt.

No. 484 at 12); see also Century Sur. Co., 2008 WL 2630959 at *5-6 (court considered

whether depositsto the account were made close to the time of the attachment, whether

funds had ever been withdrawn from the plan, and whether any of the funds were

documented with loan agreements and finding that a debtor’s declaration, “Adoption

Agreement” and redacted tax returns were insufficient to establish that the debtor’s

retirement account was “designed and used for retirement purposes”). Since Judgment

Debtors provided no evidence to support the purpose of the profit sharing plan, the

Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Curtis’ claims of

exemption be denied. 

D. Third Party Claims

Exemption claimants Danon Slinkard, and Benjamin and Eden Steigerwalt filed

an exemption claim based the third party exemption. 

California Code of Civil Procedure provides a procedure for third parties, who

are not judgment debtors or creditors, to make claims of exemption for property levied

by a writ of execution. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 688.030, 720.110. After the creditor

levies the property pursuant to a notice of levy, the third party must file a claim with

“the state department or agency that issued the notice of levy.” Id. § 688.030(b)(1). 

A third-party claim must be executed under oath and must contain the following:

(1) The name of the third person and an address in this state where

service by mail may be made on the third person.

(2) A description of the property in which an interest is claimed.

(3) A description of the interest claimed, including a statement of the

facts upon which the claim is based.

(4) An estimate of the market value of the interest claimed.

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 720.130. After filing a claim with the levying officer, the thirdparty or the creditor may petition the court for a hearing to determine the “validity of

the third-party claim and the proper disposition of the property that isthe subject of the

claim.” Id. § 720.310(a). At the hearing, the third party has the burden of proof. Id.

- 9 - [09cv2739-GPC(BLM) ]

Case 3:09-cv-02739-GPC-BLM Document 486 Filed 10/14/15 Page 9 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

§ 720.360. After the third party claimant presents evidence that it owns the property

in question, the burden of proof shifts to the judgment creditor to establish that the

judgment creditor’s claim is superior. Oxford Street Props., LLC v. Rehab. Assoc.,

LLC, 141 Cal. App. 4th 296, 307 (2012) (citation omitted). 

1. Danon Slinkard 

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Danon Slinkard’s claim

of exemption, on behalf of Daryl Slinkard, a third party, because Danon cannot file a

claim on behalf of a third party. Danon Slinkard filed a claim of exemption on behalf

of Daryl Slinkard as to account number ending in 8033 stating it is a “joint account for

someone not a judgment debtor.” (Dkt. No. 465-3, Minassian Decl. at 19.) He also

assertsthat “[h]alf is a third party who did not receive notice their property waslevied.” 

(Id.) 

Under the statute, the third party, not the judgment debtor, must file the claim of

exemption. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 688.030. Morever, even if the Court

considered Danon’s claim of exemption, he argues that the third party did not receive

notice of the levy. However, the Notice of Levy issued by the U.S. Marshals Service,

dated June 30, 2015, states that the notice was mailed on June 30, 2015 to Daryl D.

Slinkard, a third party. (Dkt. No. 465-3, Minassian Decl. at 26-27.) 

Danon Slinkard has not established a right to exemption on behalf of a third

party, Daryl Slinkard. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation that Danon Slinkard’s claim of exemption, on behalf of third party,

Daryl Slinkard, be DENIED. 

2. Benjamin and Eden Steigerwalt

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Benjamin’s claim of

exemption, but grant Eden’s claimof exemption. Benjamin and Eden Steigerwalt seek

an exemption arguing that they jointly hold the levied accounts with their parents,

Judgment Debtors Kerry and Beth Steigerwalt. 

First, neither claim of exemption is signed under oath as required by the statute. 

- 10 - [09cv2739-GPC(BLM) ]

Case 3:09-cv-02739-GPC-BLM Document 486 Filed 10/14/15 Page 10 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Benjamin and Eden both submitted an exemption claim and financial statement, but

neither claim was signed by them as the names are hand written and initials are placed

by the written names. (Dkt. No. 465-3, Minassian Decl. at 9-10; 20-22.) As a result,

the claim of exemption is faulty. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 720.130 (“third party claim

shall be executed under oath . . .”). 

In addition, according to the Magistrate Judge, Benjamin does not satisfy the

fourth element and did not produce evidence of the amountseized and did not establish

“the market value of the interests claimed.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 720.130(a)(4). The

Court agrees. Benjamin did not submit an argument or declaration or supplemental

evidence in the opposition. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the report and

recommendation and DENIES Benjamin Steigerwalt’s claim of exemption. 

Eden, on the other hand, submitted a supplemental declaration signed under the

penalty of perjury in which she states that the funds in the levied account are

exclusively hers, that she earned the funds from her employment as a second grade

teacher, and needs the money to pay for her basic living expenses and her parents have

not accessed the account since it was set up for her as a minor. (Dkt. No. 477-3, Eden

Steigerwalt Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.) Her declaration satisfies the first three elements of a third

party claimunder section 720.130(a). In addition, in construing the exemption statutes

to the benefit of the judgment debtor, the Magistrate Judge took into consideration

Kerry Steigerwalt’s declaration, which providessufficient information to establish the

fourth element, which is “the market value of the interest claimed.” (Dkt. No. 465-3,

Minassian Decl. at 32-33.) 

Even though Eden did not submit a proper claim of exemption by signing her

exemption under the penalty of perjury, the Magistrate Judge considered her claim as

if she signed the original declaration based on the supplemental declaration. Based on

this, the Magistrate Judge recommendsthat the Court grant Eden’s claimof exemption. 

After having reviewed the documents and argument, the Court agrees with the

Magistrate Judge’s decision, and ADOPTS ths report and recommendation and

- 11 - [09cv2739-GPC(BLM) ]

Case 3:09-cv-02739-GPC-BLM Document 486 Filed 10/14/15 Page 11 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GRANTS Eden Steigerwalt’s claim of exemption. 

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s report and

recommendation, and DENIES the claims of exemption filed by Alexis Cosio, Cesar

Mota, Aleksey and Diana Kats, Dale and Michele Curtis, Danon Slinkard and

Benjamin Steigerwalt and GRANTS the claims of exemptions filed by Eden

Steigerwalt.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 14, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 12 - [09cv2739-GPC(BLM) ]

Case 3:09-cv-02739-GPC-BLM Document 486 Filed 10/14/15 Page 12 of 12