Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02685/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02685-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

 Defendants’ evidentiary objections, [Doc. No. 42-1], are noted for the record and Defendants’

request for judicial notice, [Doc. No. 42-4] is DENIED.

1 09cv2685

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

North County Communications Corporation,

a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

Sprint Communications Company L.P.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 09cv2685 AJB (WMc)

Order Denying Application 

for Writ of Attachment

[Doc. No. 38]

Pursuant to Rule 64 of the FRCP and section 483.010 of the California Code of Civil Procedure,

Plaintiff NORTH COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (hereinafter “NCC” or

“Plaintiff”) has filed an Application for a Writ of Attachment and Right to Attach Order [Doc. No. 38]

against Defendant SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P., (“Defendant”) to collect an

outstanding account balance of $4,693,980.08 (total interstate and intrastate access charges as of

January 2011, excluding any applicable late fees, interest charges, and attorneys. fees). The Defendant

has filed an opposition requesting the Court deny Plaintiff’s request for attachment on the grounds that

the Plaintiff has failed to meet the statutory requirements.1

 Based upon the parties moving papers and

for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Application for a Writ of Attachment and Right to Attach

Order is hereby DENIED.

Case 3:09-cv-02685-CAB-WMC Document 49 Filed 05/11/11 Page 1 of 5
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

2 09cv2685

Background

The Plaintiff, NCC, filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on December 15, 2009, [Doc. No.

3], in which NCC alleges breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and unfair

competition. On April 26, 2010, Defendant, Sprint, filed its Answer and Counterclaim, [Doc. No. 19],

which alleges unfair imposition of charges under 47 U.S.C. §§ 203, 206 and 207; unfair and

unreasonable rates under 47 U.S.C. §§ 201(b), 206 and 207; breach of State Tariff Obligations; unjust

enrichment; alternative breach of contract; and declaratory relief.

This breach of contract case presents a dispute over whether Sprint was obligated to pay NCC

“access charges” for calls delivered from Sprint’s IXC network to NCC’s network for delivery to called

parties. NCC claims such charges are due pursuant to a Service Agreement [Doc. No. 38-5]. The

Plaintiff, NCC, is a competitive local exchange carrier (“CLEC”) that provides telecommunications

services in areas that include Arizona, California, Illinois, and Oregon. [Doc. No. 3, ¶ 9.] The

Defendant, Sprint, is, among other things, a long distance carrier or interexchange carrier (“IXC”) that

delivers interstate and intrastate long distance calls to NCC. 

Legal Standard

I. Standard for Issuance of Right to Attach Order and Writ of Attachment

California's attachment law sets forth the following requirements:

(a) Except as otherwise provided by statute, 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.

(b) An attachment may not be issued on a claim which is secured by any interest

in real property arising from agreement, statute, or other rule of law (including

any mortgage or deed of trust of realty and any statutory, common law, or

equitable lien on real property, but excluding any security interest in fixtures

subject to Division 9 (commencing with Section 9101) of the Commercial Code).

. . .

(c) If the action is against a defendant who is a natural person, an attachment may

be issued only on a claim which arises out of the conduct by the defendant of a

trade, business, or profession. An attachment may not be issued on a claim against

a defendant who is a natural person if the claim is based on the sale or lease of

property, a license to use property, the furnishing of services, or the loan of

money where the property sold or leased, or licensed for use, the services

furnished, or the money loaned was used by the defendant primarily for personal,

family, or household purposes.

Case 3:09-cv-02685-CAB-WMC Document 49 Filed 05/11/11 Page 2 of 5
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

3 09cv2685

(d) An attachment may be issued pursuant to this section whether or not other

forms of relief are demanded.

Cal.Code Civ. Proc. § 483.010. A plaintiff applying for writ of attachment must file a supporting

affidavit showing that “[t]he plaintiff on the facts presented would be entitled to a judgment on the claim

upon which the application is based” and “that the property sought to be attached is not exempt from

attachment.” Id., § 485.210(c)(1), (3).

Under California law, the court must make the following findings as a predicate for issuing a

right to attach order:

(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.Code Civ. Proc. § 484.090(a). The probable validity requirement is satisfied “where it is more likely

than not that the plaintiff will obtain a judgment against the defendant on that claim.” Id., § 481.190.

The same statute provides that “[i]f, in addition to the findings required by subdivision (a), the

court finds that the defendant has failed to prove that all the property sought to be attached is exempt

from attachment, it shall order a writ of attachment to be issued upon the filing of an undertaking as

provided by Sections 489.210 and 489.220.” Id., § 484.090(b). The presumptive amount of the

undertaking under the statute is $10,000. Id., § § 489.210, 489.220. The court has discretion to increase

the amount of the undertaking, however, on a showing that the probable recovery for a wrongful

attachment would be greater than $10,000. Id., § 489.220.

Discussion

The Plaintiff seeks a Writ of Attachment and Right to Attach Order against Defendant to attach

the following property:

(1) Interests in real property, except leasehold estates with unexpired

terms of less than one year;

(2) Accounts receivable, chattel paper, and general intangibles arising out

of the conduct by the defendant of a trade, business, or profession, except

Case 3:09-cv-02685-CAB-WMC Document 49 Filed 05/11/11 Page 3 of 5
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

2

 Defendant argues that amounts billed before February 2008 and amounts billed after June 2010

fall outside the scope of Plaintiff’s demand in the Amended Complaint.

3

 CCP §§ 483.015(b)(2)-(b)(3) requires that the amount Plaintiff seeks to attach be reduced by

the minimum amount sought by Defendant’s counterclaim. See CCP §§ 483.015(b)(2)-(b)(3) and

484.090(a)(4). 

4 09cv2685

any such individual claim with a principal balance of less than one

hundred fifty dollars ($150);

(3) Money on the premises where a trade, business, or profession is

conducted by the Defendant and, except for the first one thousand dollars

($1,000), money located elsewhere than on such premises and deposit

accounts, but, if the Defendant has more than one deposit account or has at

least one deposit account and money located elsewhere than on the

premises where a trade, business, or profession is conducted by the

defendant, the court, upon application of the Plaintiff, may order that the

Writ of Attachment be levied so that an aggregate amount of one thousand

dollars ($1,000) in the form of such money and in such accounts remains

free of levy;

(4) Negotiable documents of title;

(5) Instruments; and

(6) Securities.

The Plaintiff argues that they are entitled to issuance of a Writ of Attachment because: (1) the

application is based on a claim upon which attachment may issue (i.e., a commercial contract for readily

ascertainable amount greater than $500); (2) Plaintiff has established the probable validity of such

claim; (3) the attachment is sought solely for recovery upon the claim upon which the attachment is

based; (4) the property sought to be attached belongs to a corporation and is therefore not exempt from

attachment; (5) the amount to be secured by attachment is greater than zero; and (6) Plaintiff will

provide an undertaking in an amount approved by the Court.

Alternatively, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has failed to meet the statutory

requirements for an attachment because Plaintiff: 1) is in breach of the contract it seeks to enforce; 2) is

pursuing damages it has not pled;2

 and 3) completely ignores Defendant’s entitlement to damages based

on Plaintiff’s unlawful conduct.3

 

Based upon the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to “establish the probable validity

of the claim upon which the attachment is based” under CCP § 484.090 and has failed to state its

application with sufficient particularity. See CCP §§ 484.020(e), 484.030 (an application for a right to

Case 3:09-cv-02685-CAB-WMC Document 49 Filed 05/11/11 Page 4 of 5
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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\Even Numbers - Erin's Cases\North County\09cv2685.Order.deny.writ.wpd 5 09cv2685

attach order shall be supported by an affidavit showing that the plaintiff on the facts presented would be

entitled to a judgment on the claim upon which the attachment is based). Because Plaintiff’s right to

attach should be offset by the Defendant’s counterclaim and because the 4.6 million sought by Plaintiff

includes claims for time periods that are beyond the scope of the Amended Complaint, the Court Finds

that the Plaintiff has not established that it is entitled to the amount sought. Based upon the foregoing,

Plaintiff’s Application is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 11, 2011

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02685-CAB-WMC Document 49 Filed 05/11/11 Page 5 of 5