Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00538/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00538-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

3:18-cv-0538-CAB-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMERICA INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION, a Barbados 

corporation; and NORMERICA INC., an 

Ontario corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LITTERPURRFECT, L.P., a California 

limited partnership; and IN BOCCA AL 

LUPO, INC., a California corporation ,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-0538-CAB-MDD

ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR 

WRIT OF ATTACHMENT

[Doc. No. 8.]

This matter came before the court on May 3, 2018 for a hearing on Plaintiffs’ 

application for writ of attachment. [Doc. No. 19.] Adam Manna, Thor Urness and John 

Vaughn appeared for Plaintiffs. Robert Hocker and Ayad Michael Nalu appeared for 

Defendants. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Normerica International Corporation and Normerica Inc. (collectively 

“Normerica”) filed their operative complaint on March 22, 2018. [Doc. No. 6.] Defendants 

filed their answers, with LitterPurrfect filing a counterclaim. [Doc. Nos. 11, 12.] On April 

30, 2018, Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the counterclaims. [Doc. No. 18.] 

Case 3:18-cv-00538-CAB-MSB Document 21 Filed 05/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 10
2

3:18-cv-0538-CAB-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

For a number of years, Normerica supplied Costco with all the cat litter products that 

LitterPurrfect had sold to Costco. At the hearing, the parties represented that prior to the 

period involved in this dispute, the parties long-standing arrangement had been that Costco 

would send purchase orders to LitterPurrfect which LitterPurrfect would then forward to 

Normerica. Upon receipt of the purchase order, Normerica would fulfill and deliver the 

goods to Costco and, within 30 to 60 days of receiving the goods, Costco would pay 

LitterPurrfect for the goods received. LitterPurrfect would then, in turn, pay Normerica. 

During 2016 and 2017, Normerica began negotiations to purchase LitterPurrfect. As 

a result of the Ms. Scarvaci’s refusal to consent to the sale to Normerica, Messrs. Katz & 

Wilson sued Ms. Scarvaci claiming that her refusal was unreasonably and, in the 

alternative, seeking the dissolution of LitterPurrfect.1 The litigation amongst the partners 

proceeded before JAMS mediator, the Honorable Irma Gonzalez (ret). [Doc. No. 13-3, 6-

116.2]

While the litigation between the partners continued, Normerica withdrew its letter 

of intent to purchase on January 31, 2018. [Doc. No. 16-2.] Along with the withdrawal, 

Normerica notified LitterPurrfect that, effective February 6, 2018, “all shipments would be 

COD [cash-on-delivery] and FOB [freight-on-board]” thereby making LitterPurrfect 

responsible for transportation costs up front. [Doc. No. 13 at 3; Doc. No. 13-3 at 39; Doc. 

No 16-2.] Wilson informed Judge Gonzalez that it was not financially viable for 

LitterPurrfect to accept these new shipping terms and that they were “effectively putting it 

out of business effective February 6, 2018.” [Doc. No. 13-3 at 39, 106.]

On February 9, 2018, Ms. Scarvaci gave notice that she was appointing In Bocca Al 

Lupo, Inc, (“IBAL”), a company wholly owned by her, as the new general partner of 

 

1 LitterPurrfect is owned by three individuals: Keith Wilson (50 percent ownership), Larry Katz (25 

percent ownership) and Angelyn Scarvaci nee Katz (25 percent ownership). 

2 Document numbers and page references are to those assigned by CM/ECF for the docket entry.

Case 3:18-cv-00538-CAB-MSB Document 21 Filed 05/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 10
3

3:18-cv-0538-CAB-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LitterPurrfect. [Id. 39, 112.] On February 28, 2018, Judge Gonzales, confirmed IBAL as 

the sole general partner of LitterPurrfect.3 [Id. at 49] 

Notwithstanding the internal struggles amongst the LitterPurrfect partners and the 

failed buyout, Wilson and Normerica executed a “Management Agreement” on February 

13, 2018. [Doc. No. 13-2 at 6-9; Doc. No. 16-4.] It allowed the two companies to continue 

to do business with each other, until at least March 15, 2018 and provided Costco:

will invoice Manager [Normerica] directly for all good shipped to Costco. 

Manager will guarantee Company [LitterPurrfect] a net margin of nine 

percent (9%) based off Manager’s current selling prices to Company and 

Company’s selling prices to Costco.... The nine percent (9%) will be 

inclusive of freight (but not of any allowances or commission. Manager will 

not charge a fee for this service as Manager already processes the invoices 

and receives orders directly from Costco.

[Doc. No. 13-2 at 7, ¶ 6; Doc. No. 16-4 at ¶ 6. ]

According to the operative complaint, on March 6 and March 8, 2018, Normerica 

sent two demand letters to LitterPurrfect for immediate payment of $520,431.17 in invoices 

and $197,092.61 in freight charges. [Doc. No. 6 at 12 ¶¶ 50-52.] On March 12, 2018, 

Normerica notified LitterPurrfect that it had stopped all shipments effective immediately. 

[Doc. No. 13-3 at 3, ¶ 8.] In March 2018, LitterPurrfect issued nine checks to Normerica 

as payment for invoices that have subsequently been returned by the bank. [Doc. No. 16-

13.] Keith Wilson appears as the signatory on the checks. [Id.]

On April 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed the pending application for a writ of attachment. 

[Doc. No. 8.] Plaintiffs seek the writ to secure their claim against Defendants for breach 

of contract, quantum meruit, and open book account in connection with LitterPurrfect’s 

failure “to pay Plaintiffs for goods delivered in accordance with agreements between the 

parties.” [Doc. No. 8-2 at 6.] Normerica seeks to attach the deposit account of 

LitterPurrfect and LitterPurrfect’s accounts receivable with Costco, in addition to any other 

 

3 Until March 1, 2018, Keith Wilson and Larry Katz were the general partners of LitterPurrfect.

Case 3:18-cv-00538-CAB-MSB Document 21 Filed 05/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 10
4

3:18-cv-0538-CAB-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

property that it is entitled to attach pursuant to § 487.010(b). [Doc. No. 8.2 at 10.] 

Plaintiff’s assert that there was an informal agreement (“the Agreement”) between 

Normerica and LitterPurrfect, whereby LitterPurrfect would forward purchase orders from 

third party, Costco, to Normerica; Normerica would fulfill the orders by shipping product 

to Costco and invoicing LitterPurrfect for the costs of the product, packaging, and 

transportation; and LitterPurrfect would pay Normerica for the goods and services. [Id. at 

7.] Plaintiffs concede that the Agreement was not memorialized in writing, but contend 

that “each purchase order created a separate, stand-alone contract between Normerica and 

LitterPurrfect.” [Id. at 7.] According to Plaintiffs, based on the purchase orders Normerica 

has accepted and fulfilled, the invoices it has sent to LitterPurrfect, and the record of 

transactions between the companies, LitterPurrfect owed Normerica $1,685,064.504as of 

April 6, 2018. [Doc. No. 8-1 at ¶ 8.] 

Defendants’ opposition did not make any substantive arguments in opposition to the 

writ, rather it focused on making evidentiary objections to the declaration of Ms. Sur Sri, 

filed in support of the Application. To the extent that there were any deficiencies in the 

evidence provided in the initial application, the statements made in the declaration of Ms. 

Sri have since been supported by the documentary evidence attached to the reply. See Doc. 

Nos. 16-1– 16-13. At the hearing Defendants’ addressed the necessity of the writ, 

countering that they never agreed to the informal agreement and asserting that the 

relationship between the parties is governed by the Management Agreement. Defense 

counsel argued that, as a result, Normerica in fact owes Defendants money in accordance 

with the provision of the Management Agreement which provides Normerica will pay 

LitterPurrfect “a net margin of 9%” and is “inclusive of freight.” [Doc. No. 13 at 4.] 

Plaintiffs’ counsel responded that the Management Agreement was not followed by any of 

the parties and, notwithstanding whether or not it should be applied, Normerica 

 

4

 The writ seeks $1,686,264.59, which includes estimated allowable attorney fees of $1,200.00. [Doc. 

No. 8 at 2.]

Case 3:18-cv-00538-CAB-MSB Document 21 Filed 05/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 10
5

3:18-cv-0538-CAB-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

manufactured and delivered thousands of tons of cat litter to Costco that it is entitled to be 

reimbursed for.

DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiffs’ Application for Writ of Attachment

Plaintiffs apply for a right-to-attach order pursuant to California Code of Civil 

Procedure Code § 487.010(b).5 Attachment “is a remedy by which a plaintiff with a 

contractual claim to money (not a claim to a specific item of property) may have various 

items of a defendant’s property seized before judgment and held by a levying officer for 

execution after judgment.” Waffer Int’l Corp. v. Khorsandi, 69 Cal. App. 4th 1261, 1271, 

82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 241 (1999).

Plaintiffs’ application for writ of attachment is governed by California’s Code of 

Civil Procedure §§ 481.010-493.060. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 64(a). Generally, California’s 

attachment law requires a court to hold a hearing and issue a right-to-attach order if it finds 

the following:

(1) The claim upon which the attachment is based is one upon which an 

attachment may be issued.

(2) The plaintiff has established the probable validity of the claim upon which 

the attachment is based.

(3) The attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery on the 

claim upon which the attachment is based.

(4) The amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero.

CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 484.090(a). “The burden is on the applicant to establish each 

element necessary for an attachment order by a preponderance of the evidence.” Hinson 

v. Calvary Records, Inc., 2017 WL 1093918, at *2 (C.D. Cal Mar. 23, 2017) (citations 

omitted). Here, as analyzed below, Plaintiffs have satisfied these four requirements.

 

5 The section permits attachment of “all partnership or association property for which a method of levy is 

provided by Article 25. . . of Chapter 8.” CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 487.010. Article 2 in turn, allows for 

the attachment of real property, personal property within the defendant’s or a third party’s control, 

business equipment, deposit accounts, and accounts receivable. Id. §§ 488.315, 488.345, 488.355, 

488.375, 488.455, 488.470. 

Case 3:18-cv-00538-CAB-MSB Document 21 Filed 05/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 10
6

3:18-cv-0538-CAB-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1. Plaintiffs’ claims are ones upon which an attachment may be issued

First, Plaintiffs’ claims are ones upon which an attachment may be issued. 

Generally, an attachment may be issued “only in an action on a claim or claims for money, 

each of which is based upon a contract, express or implied, where the total amount of the 

claim or claims is a fixed or readily ascertainable amount not less than five hundred dollars 

($500) exclusive of costs, interest, and attorney’s fees.” CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 

483.010(a). 

Here, two of Normerica’s claims are for breach of an implied or express contract. 

Further, the open book account claim and quantum meruit claim are also quasi-contract 

claims that can support the issuance of a writ of attachment. See, e.g., ET Publ’g Int’l Inc. 

v. Pac. Periodicals LLC, No. CV 10-3108 DSF (AJWx), 2010 WL 11570434, at *3 (C.D.

Cal. Oct. 13, 2010) (“under California law, common counts for money had and received, 

open book account, and account stated are implied-in-law or quasi-contract claims that can 

support issuance of a writ of attachment”) (citing Hill v. Superior Court,16 Cal. 2d 527, 

530-531 (1940)); Jogani v. Superior Court, 165 Cal. App. 4th 901, 906 (Cal. Ct. App. 

2008) (a quantum meruit claim is a quasi-contract claim to recover the reasonable value of 

services rendered). Moreover, the amount Normerica is seeking to recover is readily 

ascertainable by reviewing the purchase orders that LitterPurrfect submitted to Normerica, 

the invoices that Normerica submitted to LitterPurrfect, or Normerica’s book account. 

Normerica asserts that as of April 25, 2018, the amount it seeks to recovery is 

$1,709,206.72.

6

 

2. Plaintiffs have established the probable validity of their claim

Second, Plaintiffs have established the probable validity of their claim. “A claim 

has ‘probable validity’ where it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will obtain a 

 

6 Normerica requests the Court amend the application to reflect the current amount now due which is 

$1,709,206.72, as opposed to the $1,686,264.50 originally requested as of April 7, 2018. [Doc. No. 16 at 

3.] 

Case 3:18-cv-00538-CAB-MSB Document 21 Filed 05/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 10
7

3:18-cv-0538-CAB-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

judgment against the defendant on that claim.” CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 481.190. “[T]he 

court must consider the relative merits of the positions of the respective parties and make 

a determination of the probable outcome of the litigation.” Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Glen 

Music, Inc., 166 Cal. App. 3d 1110, 1120, 212 Cal. Rptr. 830, 837 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985). 

To prevail on their breach-of-contract claim, plaintiffs must demonstrate (1) the 

existence of the contract, (2) plaintiffs’ performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) 

defendant’s breach, and (4) resulting damages to plaintiffs. Armstrong Petroleum Corp. v. 

Tri-Valley Oil & Gas Co., 116 Cal. App. 4th 1375, 1391, 11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 412, 425 (2004). 

Plaintiffs identify the purchase orders from LitterPurrfect as offers “that Normerica 

accepted by shipping the requested goods to Costco and invoicing LitterPurrfect.” [Doc. 

No. 8-2 at 14; Doc. No. 6 at 14, ¶¶ 64-65.] The existence of a contract is further evidenced 

by the copies of the Management Agreement submitted to the Court. [Doc. No. 13-2 at 6-

9; Doc. No. 16-4.] Additionally, none of the parties dispute that Normerica fulfilled its 

contractual duties by delivering the goods to Costco. And while Defendants contended at 

the hearing that the amount owed contradicts the express terms of the Management 

Agreement and that they have not received any monies for the goods Normerica delivered 

to Costco on their behalf, the only evidence submitted in support of this assertion was the 

last minute submission of the unsupported declaration of Ms. Scarvaci. In contrast, 

Plaintiffs have provided the Court with over a thousand pages of purchase orders and 

invoices, cancelled checks totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars, and multiple 

declarations in support of their position that Defendants owe them a significant amount of 

money.

The quasi-contract claims of quantum meruit and open-book account also appear 

equally viable and neither have been outwardly challenged by Defendants. The purchase 

orders constituted LitterPurrfect’s express request for Normerica to provide goods and 

services, the provision of which was intended to, and did, benefit LitterPurrfect by 

providing its sole customer with regular deliveries of goods. See, e.g., Day v. Alta Beta 

Med. Ctr., 98 Cal. App. 4th 243, 248 (2002) (a quantum meruit plaintiff “must establish 

Case 3:18-cv-00538-CAB-MSB Document 21 Filed 05/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 10
8

3:18-cv-0538-CAB-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

both that he or she was acting pursuant to either an express or implied request for such 

services from the defendant and that the services rendered were intended to and did benefit

the defendant.”) (emphasis in original). Similarly, Normerica possesses detailed business 

records of the debits and credits between it and LitterPurrfect that reflect the monies owed 

sufficient to have a valid open-book account claim. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 337(a).

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Normerica’s claims have probable viability.

3. No improper purpose

Third, Plaintiffs identify a proper purpose for their application–to ensure that 

sufficient funds exist to satisfy a judgment–and Defendants has not demonstrated an

improper purpose. Defendants argued at the hearing that Plaintiffs true intent in making 

this application is "to put them out of business." Defendants' counsel represented that it is 

the Defendants' belief that Costco has been and is paying Plaintiffs directly for the goods 

delivered, that Plaintiffs are owed nothing and it is Defendants that are owed payment by 

the Plaintiffs, pursuant to the Management Agreement. This argument was not however 

supported by any evidence (by way of documentation or declaration) that Costco is in fact 

paying Plaintiffs directly for the goods it has received. It is contrary to the only records 

provided to the Court, which indicate that Plaintiffs have been shipping goods to Costco 

on behalf of Defendants and the Plaintiffs have not been paid.

4. Amount secured is greater than zero

Finally, the amount to be secured is greater than zero. Plaintiffs originally sought a 

writ of attachment for the amount of $1,686,264.59. [Doc. No.8 at 2.] In its reply brief 

Normerica now asserts that this amount is “$1,709,206.72, but in no event less than 

$1,512,114.11.” [Doc. No. 16 at 3.] The lesser sum reflects application of the freight 

charge exemption if the Management Agreement was effective, totaling $197,092.61 

during the express effective dates.

Because Plaintiffs have satisfied the four requirements for a writ of attachment, the 

Court will issue a right-to-attach order. The parties are reminded that attachment is a 

provisional remedy, not a final one, and the Court’s determination here will have no impact 

Case 3:18-cv-00538-CAB-MSB Document 21 Filed 05/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 10
9

3:18-cv-0538-CAB-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

on future dispositive motions or at trial. CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 484.100. The Court 

simply determines, at this stage and based on the evidence before it, that Plaintiffs are more 

likely than not to succeed on their claim against Defendants for breach of the Consulting 

Services Agreement.

B. Payment of an Undertaking

Before a writ of attachment issues, plaintiffs must “file an undertaking to pay the 

defendant any amount the defendant may recover for any wrongful attachment by the 

plaintiff in the action.” CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 489.210. The undertaking should be “in 

an amount sufficient to indemnify [defendant] for damages likely to result from the levy of 

attachment in the event the attachment ultimately proves to have been ‘wrongful.’ It is the 

optimal function of the remedy of attachment to provide the plaintiff with security up to 

the amount of his claim at a cost that does not render the remedy prohibitive while still 

affording to the defendant an undertaking in an amount that will adequately satisfy his 

damages for wrongful attachment.” N. Hollywood Marble Co. v. Superior Court, 157 Cal. 

App. 3d 683, 690, 204 Cal. Rptr. 55 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984). If attachment is later deemed 

wrongful, plaintiffs liability for wrongful attachment “is limited by the amount of the 

undertaking.” CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 490.020(b).

The default amount for plaintiffs’ undertaking is $10,000.00. CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE

§ 489.220(a). Here, Defendants have chosen to remain silent on the issue of whether or 

not Normerica should be required to post an undertaking. Accordingly, the Court finds 

that the default undertaking of $10,000.00 is reasonable. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ application for a right-to-attach order is GRANTED. [Doc. No. 8.] 

Plaintiffs have the right to attach the property of Defendant LitterPurrfect in the amount of 

$1,489,171.98.7 The property attached shall be limited to any monies Defendants have 

 

7 Setting aside the contested freight charges, this is the amount Plaintiffs assert is owed. [See Doc. No.

16 at 11.]

Case 3:18-cv-00538-CAB-MSB Document 21 Filed 05/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 10
10

3:18-cv-0538-CAB-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

received, or receive in the future, from Costco for any and all LitterPurrfect products 

supplied and shipped by Normerica. The Clerk of Court is instructed to issue a writ of 

attachment, in accordance with the above, upon Plaintiffs’ posting of an undertaking in the 

amount of $10,000.00. In the interim, the Temporary Protective Order issued at the hearing 

remains in effect. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00538-CAB-MSB Document 21 Filed 05/04/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 10