Cicelyn Slade vs Asad Warraich et al

Case No.: 22CV394951

I. BACKGROUND This matter comes before the Court on Judgment Creditor James E. Shelton's Motion for Order Allowing Wage Garnishment on Non-Debtor Spouse pursuant to Code

of Civil Procedure § 706.109. The motion was filed on February 26, 2026, with proper notice to Aleena Khan, the non-debtor spouse of judgment debtor Asad Warraich. No opposition has been filed. The underlying judgment was entered on February 16, 2022, arising from a Labor Commissioner Order awarding $12,530.40 to plaintiff Cicelyn Tejada Slade for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and waiting time penalties for work performed from February 1, 2017, to March 25, 2018. The judgment was assigned to Shelton on October 28, 2024. As of the filing date of the motion, $17,580.32 remains outstanding with accrued interest. II. LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 706.109 authorizes a judgment creditor to obtain an earnings withholding order against a non-debtor spouse by court order after a noticed motion. (Code. Civ. Proc. § 706.109.) The purpose of such a hearing is to determine the nature of the debt, the earnings, and whether the wages are subject to garnishment. The substantive basis for such relief is found in California's community property statutes. Under California Family Code section 760, all property acquired by a married person during marriage while domiciled in California is community property. (Fam.

Code § 760.) This includes earnings from employment during the marriage. Fam. Code § 910(a) provides that the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of which spouse has management and control of the property and regardless of whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt or to a judgment for the debt. (Fam. Code § 910; Mem. in Supp. 4:18-21.) Fam. Code § 903 defines when a debt is "incurred": in the case of a contract, at the time the contract is made; in the case of a tort, at the time the tort occurs; and in other cases, at the time the obligation arises. (Fam.

Code § 903.) Fam. Code § 911(a) provides a limited protection, stating that the earnings of a married person during marriage are not liable for a debt incurred by the person's spouse before marriage. (Fam. Code § 911.) This protection applies only to pre-marital debts, not to debts incurred during the marriage. III. FACTUAL FINDINGS

Having considered the evidence submitted by Judgment Creditor, in the declaration of James E. Shelton, the Court makes the following findings of fact:

A. Ongoing Marriage Judgment debtor Asad Warraich has been married to Aleena Khan for at least eighteen years, from at least August 28, 2007, to the present. Mem. in Supp. 2:15-17. The evidence establishes: 1. A 2007 Interspousal Transfer Grant Deed identifying Khan as "spouse of grantee" when Warraich transferred property to her. (Mem. in Supp. 2:18-22; Declaration of James E. Shelton.)

2. A 2022 Grant Deed naming both Warraich and Khan as trustees of their revocable living trust. (Mem. in Supp. 2:23-28; Decl. of James E. Shelton.)

3. Warraich's website profile stating that Khan "treasures precious moments with her husband and three children." (Mem. in Supp. 4:1-2; Decl. of James E. Shelton.)

4. The judgment debtor's own admission to Plaintiff that he is married and his wife works as a nurse practitioner. (Mem. in Supp. 3:19-20; Decl. of James E. Shelton.) No evidence has been presented of divorce, legal separation, or termination of the marriage. (Mem. in Supp. 5:9-11; Decl. of James E. Shelton.)

B. Debt Incurred During Marriage The underlying judgment arises from unpaid wages for work performed from February 1, 2017, to March 25, 2018. (Mem. in Supp. 5:12-16; Decl. of James E. Shelton.) This period falls squarely within the marriage, which commenced by at least August 28, 2007. Under Family Code § 903, the employment wage obligation was incurred when the obligation arose—when the work was performed and wages became due. (Fam. Code § 903.) The debt was therefore incurred during the marriage.

C. Nature of the Debt The judgment comprises unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, and waiting time penalties under California Labor Code. Final Judgment. These are statutory obligations arising from the employment relationship.

D. Khan's Earnings Are Community Property Aleena Khan is a Nurse Practitioner with a DNP degree who is currently employed at UCSF Health and Contra Costa Oncology. (Mem. in Supp. 3:21-25; Decl. of James E. Shelton.) Her earnings from this employment during the ongoing marriage are presumptively community property subject to enforcement under Fam. Code § 760.

E. No Opposition, Exemption, or Hardship Shown No opposition has been filed by Aleena Khan or on her behalf. No evidence has been presented of exemptions, hardship, or other circumstances that would preclude or limit wage garnishment.

IV. DISCUSSIONS Based on the foregoing findings, the Court concludes that the requirements for spousal wage garnishment under Code Civ. Proc. § 706.109 and Fam. Code. § § 760, 903, and 910 are satisfied. Khan's earnings from her current employment constitute community property because they were acquired during marriage while the spouses were domiciled in California. (Fam. Code, § 760.) The underlying wage debt was incurred during the marriage because the work was performed and the wages became due in 2017-2018, after the parties married. (Fam.

Code, § 903.) Accordingly, the community estate is liable for the debt because it was incurred by one spouse during marriage, regardless of whether both spouses are parties to the debt or judgment. (Fam. Code, § 910 (a).) Fam. Code § 911 does not apply because it protects a spouse's earnings only from debts incurred before marriage, whereas the debt here arose during the marriage. Nor does garnishment of Khan's wages violate due process. Fam. Code § 910 expressly permits satisfaction of a judgment against one spouse from community property, and Code Civ.

Proc § 706.109 provides the required procedural safeguards by requiring notice and a court order before a non-debtor spouse's wages may be reached. Khan received notice of this motion and an opportunity to be heard, satisfying due process.

Finally, Fam. Code §910 contains no exception based on the nature of the debt, the nondebtor spouse's lack of involvement in the underlying transaction, or equitable considerations. This order authorizes issuance of an earnings withholding order only and does not determine any exemption from garnishment. Khan retains the right to claim any applicable state or federal exemptions during enforcement of the earnings withholding order. V. FINDINGS AND ORDER For the foregoing reasons, Judgment Creditor James E. Shelton's Motion for Order Allowing Wage Garnishment on Non-Debtor Spouse is GRANTED. The Court finds that: 1. Asad Warraich and Aleena Khan have been married since at least August 28, 2007, and remain married.

2. The underlying debt was incurred during the marriage when work was performed and wages became due from February 1, 2017, to March 25, 2018.

3. Aleena Khan's earnings from her employment as a Nurse Practitioner at UCSF Health and Contra Costa Oncology are community property under Fam. Code § 760.

4. The community estate is liable for the judgment debt under Fam. Code § 910(a), regardless of the fact that Khan was not a party to the underlying judgment. The Court therefore ORDERS that Judgment Creditor James E. Shelton is authorized to issue an earnings withholding order pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 706.109 against the wages of Aleena Khan to satisfy the judgment entered February 16, 2022, in the amount of $17,580.32 (as of February 26, 2026), plus accrued interest and costs. This authorization is subject to Aleena Khan's right to claim applicable statutory exemptions under state and federal law when the earnings withholding order is served and the earnings withholding limitations and procedures set forth in Code Civ. Proc. §§ 706.050 et seq.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: July 31, 2026 Hon. Panteha E. Saban Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara

Line 8 Case Name: John Roe 1 et al v. 3 Doe et al