Employment Timeline — Charles Nibley
Stipulated Judgment baseline (June 17, 2022)
At entry of the Stipulated Judgment, Charley was employed at Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation as an engineer. ¶46 of the Stipulated Judgment lists his gross monthly income at $15,154 with a 48% timeshare. ¶68 describes him as having “been employed with this company for 12 years” as of the 2022 entry. See Stipulated Judgment ¶46 - 2022 Income Figures.
Through approximately 2024 — Northrop Grumman
Continued at Northrop Grumman as an engineer through approximately 2024. Income trajectory roughly tracking the 2022 baseline.
2024 to February 2025 — Parry Labs
Transitioned to Parry Labs (date approximate). Employment ended in February 2025 with a layoff — an involuntary termination, not a voluntary departure. The Parry Labs layoff is the inflection point for the support-side analysis: it ends the salaried-W-2 trajectory that opposing counsel relies on for imputation.
February 2025 to present — Mail Station
Following the Parry Labs layoff, Charley capitalized Mail Station — a postal and business services center at 325 W Washington St, San Diego — using a Rollover for Business Startups (ROBS) C-corporation arrangement (see ROBS C-corp structure). He has been the sole operator from February 2025 to the present. See Mail Station business overview for the operational profile.
Anchoring this timeline to the support-side analysis
- The 2022 ¶46 figure ($15,154/month) is a historical income data point, not a forward-looking earning capacity figure. See Stipulated Judgment ¶46 - 2022 Income Figures.
- The 2026 FL-150 figures (original 2/20, amended 3/13) reflect the post-layoff Mail Station reality. See FL-150 - 2026-03-13 - Amended Income and Expense Declaration.
- Imputation back to the 2022 figure requires moving-party evidence of present ability AND present opportunity at that level. See In re Marriage of Bardzik, In re Marriage of Regnery, Mendoza v. Ramos, Mercado v. Superior Court.
- The Parry Labs layoff is the dispositive distinguishing fact against any In re Marriage of McHugh / In re Marriage of Berger “voluntary income reduction” argument — the layoff was involuntary and documented.