Judgment, earnings withholding order

California
I just been served a Notice of Motion by Judgment Creditor that an Earnings Withholding Order, my question is can I still challenge the SOL CA laws? How can I buy more time at this point? Since I just
Learn about this forum, (I feel so stupid and dumb for putting this off for so long)
Yes, I been served 2 times, each time when I call the court they told me the case is dismiss, and the collection agency and their attorney keep serve me a new notice of motion by judgment creditor with new court date, yesterday my wife been serve the same judgment paper at her work,(is this legal)
This account is date back in 1991; the judgment was entered on March 1993 in California,
Only now they want to garnish my wages.
Can some one explain TENTATIVE RULINGS: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.04, the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing? To receive the tentative ruling call the department in which the matter is to be heard. If you do not call the court and the opposing part by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.
Shall I call and set a hearing date?

[Ladynred]

The debt has been reduced to judgment, you can no longer challenge an old debt on the basis of the SOL. Judgments in CA are good for 10 years so it is still enforceable and that's what they are trying to do by garnishing your wages.

As for serving your wife, CA is a community property state, so yes, its legal.

[JETX]

"I just been served a Notice of Motion by Judgment Creditor that an Earnings Withholding Order, my question is can I still challenge the SOL CA laws?"
** No. From your post (1991 debt, 1993 judgment), there is no SOL issue. And since the judgment was rendered in 1993, CA judgments are good for 10 years and renewable for another 10 years, so it will remain valid for a LONG time. No SOL issues.

"How can I buy more time at this point?"
** You can't. The judgment creditor has already waited 10 years for you. Time to pay up.

"Since I just Learn about this forum, (I feel so stupid and dumb for putting this off for so long)"
** No challenge there.

"Yes, I been served 2 times, each time when I call the court they told me the case is dismiss, and the collection agency and their attorney keep serve me a new notice of motion by judgment creditor with new court date, yesterday my wife been serve the same judgment paper at her work,(is this legal)"
** So, for some reason or other, both parties haven't pushed this forward YET. Maybe this is the one!!

"This account is date back in 1991; the judgment was entered on March 1993 in California, Only now they want to garnish my wages."
** Okay so far.

"Can some one explain TENTATIVE RULINGS: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.04, the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing? To receive the tentative ruling call the department in which the matter is to be heard. If you do not call the court and the opposing part by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held."
**Simply, this is a process where each party is expected to call the court and other party the day before the scheduled hearing to make sure that it was not rescheduled. Supposed to save the court time wasted on 'no shows'.

"Shall I call and set a hearing date?"
** What the heck, go for it. I venture it will be a good learning tool for you.... especially since you will have to pay for any no-shows (in the costs for service, filing, etc. added to the judgment).

Is this means I call the day before the court date to set the hearing date, or just wait and respond to tentative rulings on the day preceding the hearing?

WCH

[JETX]

It means exactly what it says.....
"the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing.

To receive the tentative ruling call the department in which the matter is to be heard.

If you do not call the court and the opposing part by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held."