Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03033/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03033-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--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

 The Court, however, sets important limits on the scope of the writ of attachment in the pages

that follow.

1

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Oncology Therapeutics Network

Connection,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

Virginia Hematology Oncology

PLLC, a limited liability company;

Ronald Poulin, an individual, 

 Defendant(s).

_____________________________/

No. C 05-3033 WDB

 

ORDER FOLLOWING OCTOBER 19,

2005, HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF

ATTACHMENT AND RIGHT TO

ATTACH ORDER

On October 19, 2005, the Court conducted a hearing on plaintiff's application for a

writ of attachment and a right to attach order. During the hearing, the Court and the parties

also discussed various case management issues. For reasons articulated more thoroughly on

the record, the Court ORDERS as follows:

I. Plaintiff's Pending Application for Writ of Attachment and Right to Attach Order

1. The Court has reviewed plaintiff's application for writ of attachment and right to

attach order, and finds that the application and evidence submitted in support thereof are

sufficient to justify issuance of a writ of attachment and right to attach order.1

Case 4:05-cv-03033-WDB Document 32 Filed 10/25/05 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

More specifically, the Court FINDS that (i) the claim upon which the attachment is

based is one upon which an attachment may be based; (ii) the evidence submitted by plaintiff

(as yet unrebutted) establishes the probable validity of the claim upon which the attachment

is based; and (iii) the attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery upon

which the request for attachment is based. See Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 484.090(a).

2. Defendant has not sought to prove that any of the property sought to be attached

is exempt from attachment. On this record, the Court finds that the defendant has failed to

prove that any of the property sought to be attached is exempt from attachment. See Cal.

Code of Civ. Proc. § 484.090(b).

3. At the hearing, plaintiff's counsel confirmed that his application for Writ of

Attachment does not seek a Court award of attorneys fees and costs. Rather, the amount

plaintiff seeks to secure by the attachment includes attorneys fees and costs. 

4. Plaintiff's application seeks a writ of attachment applicable to twelve different

types of property, including a piece of real property located at 1504 Oak Hill Court, Virginia

Beach, Virginia, 23454. Defendant argues that the Court does not have jurisdiction to issue

a writ of attachment for property whose legal situs is outside of California.

The Court believes that defendant is correct on this point. See, e.g., Pacific Decision

Sciences Corp. v. Superior Court (Maudlin), 121 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1108 (2004) (court

lacked jurisdiction to issue turnover order in aid of writ of attachment for out-of-state

property); Paul H. Aschkar & Co. v. Curtis, 327 F.2d 306, 310 (9th Cir. 1963) (no district

court attachment jurisdiction outside state despite 1934 Securities Exchange Act provision

permitting nationwide service of process); Taylor v. Taylor, 192 Cal. 71, 76 (1923)

(jurisdiction to affect title to real property rests solely with situs state); California Practice

Guide, Enforcing Judgments & Debts, Ch. 4-A at 4:75 (2005 ed.) ("Levies under a writ of

attachment can only reach property within California. Thus, defendant's property located

outside California cannot be attached in a California action").

Case 4:05-cv-03033-WDB Document 32 Filed 10/25/05 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

Accordingly, the Court's right to attach order and the corresponding writ of attachment

will reach only property whose legal situs is within the state of California.

5. Plaintiff's application seeks a writ of attachment applicable to both defendant

Virginia Hematology Oncology and defendant Poulin. With the exception of the one nonattachable piece of real property located in Virginia, however, plaintiff's application does not

identify any specific items of property. Rather, it lists general categories of presumptively

attachable property.

Code of Civil Procedure section 484.020(e) states that, "Where the defendant is an

individual, the description of the property shall be reasonably adequate to permit the

defendant to identify the specific property sought to be attached." Cal. Code of Civ. Proc.

§ 484.020(e) (emphasis added). Except as to the piece of real property in Virginia, plaintiff's

list of general categories of property is not reasonably adequate to permit individual

defendant Poulin to identify the specific property plaintiff seeks to attach. Accordingly, on

this record, the Court will not issue a writ of attachment as to defendant Poulin's property.

Code of Civil Procedure section 484.020(e) also states that, "Where the defendant is

a corporation, a reference to 'all corporate property which is subject to attachment pursuant

to subdivision (a) of Code of Civil Procedure section 487.010' satisfies the requirements of

this subdivision." Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 484.020(e) (emphasis added). We find that

plaintiff's description of the property subject to attachment as to defendant Virginia

Hematology Oncology meets the statutory standard.

6. In sum, at this time, the Court will issue a right to attach order authorizing

issuance of a writ of attachment that reaches all of defendant Virginia Hematology

Oncology's property whose legal situs is in California. 

Plaintiff's posting of a $10,000 bond will be a condition precedent to the issuance of

the writ of attachment by the Clerk of the Court.

Case 4:05-cv-03033-WDB Document 32 Filed 10/25/05 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

4

7. Plaintiff may submit an application for another writ of attachment after it acquires

additional information regarding the nature, amount, and location of defendants' assets. (See

below.)

II. Case Management

1. To the extent necessary to meet the informational needs of the parties discussed

at the October 19, 2005, hearing, the Court hereby LIFTS the stay of discovery imposed by

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

2. Defense counsel must make Dr. Poulin available for deposition on a date

agreeable to plaintiff's counsel prior to December 9, 2005. If defendants designate Dr.

Poulin as their 30(b)(6) witness on certain specified topics, Dr. Poulin may be deposed in

both his 30(b)(6) and individual capacities. In addition, plaintiff may depose Dr. Poulin

regarding both the merits of the case and the nature, amount, and location of his assets (and,

if he is designated defendant Virginia Hematology Oncology's 30(b)(6) witness on this topic,

the nature, amount, and location of defendant Virginia Hematology Oncology's assets).

Significantly in advance of Dr. Poulin's deposition, defense counsel must assess,

through discussions with Dr. Poulin, whether the amount of information plaintiff's counsel

will be able to elicit at Dr. Poulin's deposition regarding the above-referenced topics would

be substantially increased by the contemporaneous solicitation of information from, for

instance, Dr. Poulin's bookkeeper, accountant, or assistant. If the presence of one of these

people (or another person operating in a similar capacity) would substantially increase the

information available on these topics, this person must be available for questioning at Dr.

Poulin's deposition.

3. If, after deposing Dr. Poulin, (and conducting additional asset-based discovery, if

necessary), plaintiff's counsel wishes to contest defendants' position that all of their assets

have a legal situs outside of the State of California, plaintiff's counsel must send

correspondence to the Court (via the Court's electronic filing system) so stating. Plaintiff's

Case 4:05-cv-03033-WDB Document 32 Filed 10/25/05 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

5

correspondence must propose a briefing schedule and hearing date for the resolution of these

issues, and must be electronically filed by no later than December 20, 2005.

4. The Case Management Conference, previously scheduled to occur on November

28, 2005, and the hearing on plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, previously scheduled

to occur on November 30, 2005, are hereby VACATED.

5. If, at any time, either party believes that a conference is necessary to address a

pending case management issue, they may call the Court's administrative law clerk at (510)

637-3324 and request that such a conference be scheduled.

6. The Court encourages the parties to continue their efforts to resolve this case by

settlement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2005 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to: Parties, WDB, stats

Case 4:05-cv-03033-WDB Document 32 Filed 10/25/05 Page 5 of 5