DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CV043083·alameda·Civil·Claim of Exemption
Hearing 3 months agoDropped

MUKASA vs GUESS, et al.

Ex Parte Application ORDER TO ADVANCE HEARING OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION; Opposition to claim of exemption

Hearing date
Jun 4, 2026
Department
24
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Ex Parte Application rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$3800$4,411$2,880$150

Parties

PlaintiffAli Mukasa
DefendantGuess
DefendantAza Abdelziz

Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 23CV043083: MUKASA vs GUESS, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Claim of Exemption/Third-Party Claim CRS# A-43083-003 in Department 24 Tentative Ruling - 05/28/2026 Rebekah Evenson The Ex Parte Application ORDER TO ADVANCE HEARING OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION filed by Ali Mukasa on 05/14/2026 is Dropped. Plaintiff’s opposition to claim of exemption is DROPPED from the June 4, 2026 calendar. Defendant filed a “Memo to Superior Court – Claim of Exemption” on May 8, 2026, and then a document entitled “The Defendant Aza Abdelziz Expenses and Income Attachment” on May 13, 2026.

Abdelziz claims gross monthly income of $3800 and monthly expenses of $4,411. Plaintiff’s “Notice on Opposition to Claim of Exemption”, which was filed with the Court on May 14, 2026, refers to a claim of exemption in which Defendant claims net monthly income of $2,880 and expenses of, inter alia, a monthly phone bill of $150. The income and expenses discussed in Plaintiff’s “Notice of Opposition to Claim of Exemption” do not match the corresponding income and expenses in Defendant’s claim of exemption filed on May 13, 2025.

The Court therefore does not have the claim of exemption that Plaintiff opposes, and as a result cannot rule on Plaintiff’s opposition to the claim of exemption. If Plaintiff files any future oppositions to a claim of exemption, Plaintiff must attach a copy of the claim of exemption he is opposing along with his opposition papers.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share