Regency Centers, L.P. v. Alankar Verma, et al.

the definition of "gross proceeds" in the agreement, which appears to be disputed), those issues will presumably require testimony from some of the same witnesses that testify on standing under the agreement. To bifurcate the trial would not promote judicial economy. (Estate of Young (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 62, 87 [discussing statutory interpretation by courts; "The words of the statute must be construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and statutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible."].)

Logistical issues also raise a concern for the Court in connection with the request to bifurcate and try standing first. Bifurcation will result in duplication of some testimony, and some witnesses will need to appear for testimony twice. If the same jury will hear all phases of the trial - standing, breach and damages, and punitive damages, it will be extremely difficult to give potential jurors an accurate estimate of the length of the trial. If a different jury hears each phase or one jury hears two phases and another the third phase, then the entire length of the trial will be extended by the need for multiple jury selections.

If the Court were to bifurcate and the jury found that LRC lacked standing, that finding would shorten the trial, but the Court cannot rely on such an uncertain outcome in determining whether to bifurcate. Accordingly, the Motion to Bifurcate regarding the issue of standing is denied.

Conclusion

Defendants and Cross-complainants Content Partners, LLC; CP IEG Holdings, LP; and GFK Distribution, LP's Motion for Bifurcation as to the issue of standing is denied. Date: 08/25/2026 _______________________________ William E. Weinberger Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

HEARING DATE: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 CASE NUMBER: 23STCV268839 CASE NAME: Regency Centers, L.P. v. Alankar Verma, et al. MOVING PARTY: Judgment Debtors Alankar Verma and Sunita Verma OPPOSING PARTY: Judgment Creditor Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. PROCEEDING: Claim of Exemption RULING SUMMARY: As community property, Ms. Verma's assets are subject to levy to enforce the Judgment against Mr. Verma. Nothing submitted by Judgment Debtors is sufficient to change the Court's prior ruling. The Claim of Exemption is denied, except for the amount exempt without claim of exemption pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 704.220(a).

Background

On May 11, 2026, the Court issued the following Ruling on Judgment Debtors Claim of Exemption: Judgment Debtor Alankar Verma's request to exempt his deposit accounts and IRA accounts is denied, except for the amount exempt without claim of exemption pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 704.220(a) . The claim to exempt wages is denied as moot.

The Court continued the hearing to August 18, 2026, subsequently continued to August 25, 2026, as to the Claim of Exemption with regard to judgment debtor Sunita Verma. The Court ordered the parties to submit briefing regarding Ms. Verma no later than five court days before the hearing.

On August 18, 2026, a Second Supplemental Declaration of Alankar Verma in Support of Claim of Exemption was filed. In the declaration, Mr. Verma states that he intends to retire at age 67 and is currently 62, and summarily states that his wife is financially dependent on him, and that their primary "income will be Social Security benefits, as we do not have other meaningful savings or readily available financial resources." (2nd Supp. Verma Decl. P. 2.)

On August 18, 2026, Judgment Creditor Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. filed Judgment Creditor's Memorandum in Opposition to Claim of Exemption. Judgment Creditor noted that, pursuant to Family Code section 910(a) and Code of Civil Procedure section 694.020, Ms. Verma's assets are community property that is subject to the levy to enforce a judgment against Mr. Verma. Judgment Creditor also asserted that the evidence previously offered by Ms. Verma shows that her assets were earned or received during the Vermas' marriage and, therefore, under Family Code section 760, constitute community property. And, if and to the extent that Ms. Verma claims that any of her assets are separate property, she has not timely filed a Claim of Exemption to protect those assets from levy. Claim of Exemption I.

Legal Standard

In its May 11, 2026 Ruling, the Court quoted at length the statutes applicable to a Claim of Exemption and the Claimant's burden of proof. II.

Discussion

In that Ruling, the Court also concluded that Judgment Debtor Alankar has not presented clear evidence of what his monthly expenses, whether his take home pay is sufficient to cover these expenses, and whether his primary checking and savings account with Premier America should be exempt from the Judgment under Code of Civil Procedure Section 704.225. Judgment Debtor Alankar had the burden of proof on his claim of exemption, and the Court had previously continued the hearing on the claim of exemption to give him a further opportunity to offer evidence to sustain that burden. He had not done so; therefore, his claim of exemption was denied.

In regard to the IRA accounts, the Court founds and concluded: "In assessing whether a plan or account was principally or primarily designed and used for retirement purposes, courts are to look at the totality of the circumstances." (O'Brien v. AMBS Diagnostics, LLC (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 553, 561.) Judgment Creditor asserts that because Alankar is not retired, the IRA accounts are not exempt. There is no evidence that Alankar exceeded the IRS IRA contribution limits to shield these funds from creditors.

Alankar's contributions into these accounts predated the Judgment entered against him by decades. The fact that Alankar has not retired does not mean that purpose of these accounts is lost. Moreover, the fact that the funds from the IRA accounts have not been withdrawn supports the contention that he intends to rely on these funds for his retirement. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Alankar used the IRA account to finance his current lifestyle and the funds are no longer designated for a retirement purpose.

But even if, as the Court finds, Alankar's IRA accounts are for the purposes of retirement, Alankar has not offered evidence to sustain his burden to show "necessary to provide for the support of the judgment debtor when the judgment debtor retires and for the support of the spouse . . ., taking into account all resources that are likely to be available for the support of the judgment debtor when the judgment debtor retires." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 704.115.) He provided no evidence regarding when he intends to retire or what his monthly expenses and need for his own and his spouse's support in retirement. Again, the Court previously continued this hearing to give Alankar a further opportunity to provide evidence to sustain his burden of proof. He has not met that burden.

While Mr. Verma has now stated in his 2nd Supplemental Declaration that he intends to retire in five years, the Court's May 11, 2026 Ruling already made determinations as to Claim of Exemption and did not invite further evidence from the Judgment Debtors. The Court only ordered further briefing as to whether Mrs. Verma needs to file a third-party claim of exemption pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 720.110 et seq. Judgment Debtors filed no further briefing.

Conclusion

As community property, Ms. Verma's assets are subject to levy to enforce the Judgment against Mr. Verma. Nothing submitted by Judgment Debtors is sufficient to change the Court's prior ruling. The Claim of Exemption is denied, except for the amount exempt without claim of exemption pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 704.220(a). Date: _______________________________ William