Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06119/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06119-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE 

LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE 

TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MICHAEL HEAVEY CONSTRUCTION, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.18-cv-06119-JSC 

ORDER RE: EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO 

ATTACH ORDER AND WRIT OF 

ATTACHMENT, OR 

ALTERNATIVELY A TEMPORARY 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 7

Plaintiffs The Board of Trustees for the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for 

Northern California, Laborers Vacation-Holiday Trust Fund for Northern California, Laborers 

Pension Trust Fund for Northern California, and Laborers Training and Retraining Trust Fund for 

Northern California (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring causes of action for breach of contract, audit, 

and enforcement of personal guaranty against Defendants Michael Heavey Construction, Inc., 

Michael B. Heavey, and Noreen B. Heavey (collectively, “Defendants”). (Dkt. No. 1.)1 Now 

pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for right to attach order and writ of 

attachment, or alternatively a temporary protective order. After careful consideration of Plaintiffs’ 

briefing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ application because it fails to sufficiently allege great or 

irreparable injury warranting ex parte relief. 

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 authorizes district courts to employ state law remedies 

for attachment. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, a writ of attachment generally 

 

1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents. 

Case 3:18-cv-06119-JSC Document 13 Filed 11/01/18 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

may not be issued without notice to the defendant and a hearing. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§

484.040 (“No order or writ shall be issued under this article except after a hearing.”); 1005(b)

(detailing notice requirements). A writ of attachment may be issued ex parte, however, if “it 

appears from facts shown by affidavit that great or irreparable injury would result to the plaintiff if 

issuance of the order were delayed until the matter could be heard on notice.” Cal. Civ. Proc. 

Code § 485.010(a); see also Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1, 16 (1991) (holding that notice to 

defendant required absent sufficient allegations of exigent circumstances). Thus, issuance of a 

writ of attachment prior to a noticed hearing is appropriate only “for use in exceptional 

circumstances.” See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 484.010 law revision commission’s comments to 

1974 addition. 

In Novus Optimum Labs v. Tamayo, for example, the court found the plaintiff’s allegations 

in support of ex parte relief insufficient where he “presented no specific evidence that the 

defendant was likely to hide or dissipate assets if given notice that the plaintiffs were seeking a 

writ of attachment.” No. 13-cv-1119-JST, 2013 WL 1390457, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2013). 

Instead, the plaintiff merely alleged prior fraudulent conduct and the conclusory statement that 

“[i]f given regular notice, [d]efendants will conceal their bank account funds and move money and 

other assets on the premises in order to avoid attachment.” Id. Accordingly, the court denied 

plaintiff’s application and deferred “discussing the substantive merits of the application until such 

time as [plaintiff] brings the matter before the court after notice [to defendant].” Id. 

Here, the allegations do not rise to the level of even those found deficient in Novus. To 

secure amounts owed to Plaintiffs by Defendants pursuant to a settlement agreement dated 

October 27, 2016, Plaintiffs seek to attach: 

(1) all the Defendant[s’] real property interests including, but not 

limited to, Defendants’ interest in real property located in San 

Francisco Count[y], California with Parcel ID Number 3076-009 

which currently has the address of 250 Santa Paula Avenue, San 

Francisco, California 94127-1526; (2) any and all proceeds from the 

sale of [that property]; (3) Defendant[s’] accounts receivable, chattel 

paper and general intangibles arising out of Defendants’ trade, 

business or profession; and (4) all but the first $1,000.00 of the money 

in every deposit accounts of Defendants located anywhere other than 

Defendant[s’] place of business. 

Case 3:18-cv-06119-JSC Document 13 Filed 11/01/18 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

(Dkt. No. 7 at ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs allege that there is a short sale pending on the real property at 250 

Santa Paula Avenue, and that, “if Plaintiffs were to provide notice of their application for a writ of 

attachment to [Defendants], they would take steps to hasten the close of escrow to circumvent 

[Plaintiffs] from obtaining a writ of attachment and lien on the property.” (Dkt. No. 11 at ¶ 7.) 

However, Plaintiffs fail to explain how Defendants could unilaterally “hasten the close of escrow” 

if given notice of the writ. 

Further, Plaintiffs’ affidavits do not allege a likelihood of great or irreparable injury based 

on past fraudulent conduct or specific efforts to hide assets, and instead state only that “Michael 

Heavey has a history of failing to pay the amounts owed by Michael Heavey Construction to 

[Plaintiffs] for contributions untimely,” and based on that history, “Michael Heavey . . . will 

dissipate any proceeds payable to he and his wife from the sale of their home prior to the date on 

which [Plaintiffs] could secure a lien on the real property through recordation of a writ of 

attachment.” (Dkt. No. 11 at ¶¶ 5, 7.) Plaintiffs provide no specific facts that Defendants are 

likely to hide or dissipate assets to support that statement; instead, their allegations are conclusory 

and fail to show exigent or exceptional circumstances warranting ex parte relief. See Doehr, 501 

U.S. 1, 16 (1991); see also Blackmon v. Tobias, No. C 11-2853 SBA, 2011 WL 2445963, at *4 

(N.D. Cal. June 16, 2011) (“Plaintiffs’ speculation that Defendants will [dissipate assets upon 

notice of writ of attachment and temporary restraining order], based on their prior fraudulent 

conduct, is insufficient to justify dispensing with notice.”). 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ application for a writ of 

attachment, or alternatively a temporary protective order2 without prejudice to seeking such relief 

 

2 Plaintiffs provide no argument regarding their alternative request for a “temporary protective 

order,” or any discussion as to what such relief would entail. (See generally Dkt. No. 8.) If 

Plaintiffs are requesting a temporary restraining order, however, then the same showing of 

irreparable injury is required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) (A temporary restraining order may 

issue without notice to the adverse party only if “(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified 

complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the 

movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney 

certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be 

required.”). 

Case 3:18-cv-06119-JSC Document 13 Filed 11/01/18 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

upon notice to Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2018

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-06119-JSC Document 13 Filed 11/01/18 Page 4 of 4