Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02250/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02250-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONGALEN ENTERPRISES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

METAL FRAMING ENTERPRISES, 

LLC,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-02250-MCE-AC

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Dongalen Enterprises, Inc., (“Plaintiff”) seeks to recover breach of 

contract damages from Defendant Metal Framing Enterprises, LLC, (“Defendant”). The 

alleged contractual violations arise from the parties’ agreement that Defendant would 

purchase certain purportedly custom goods (i.e., sheets of plastic) from Plaintiff. 

Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendant wrongfully rejected goods it had agreed to 

purchase, and Defendant claims Plaintiff attempted to deliver goods that were never 

ordered. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Right to Attach Order and 

Writ of Attachment (“Motion”), by which Plaintiff seeks to secure $127,074.69. ECF No. 

10. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.1

 1 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter 

submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g).

Case 2:15-cv-02250-MCE-AC Document 22 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 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

2

ANALYSIS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 codifies the “long-settled federal law providing 

that in all cases in federal court, whether or not removed from state court, state law is 

incorporated to determine the availability of prejudgment remedies for the seizure of 

person or property to secure satisfaction of the judgment ultimately entered.” Granny 

Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda 

Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 436 n.10 (1974). Under California law, “[a]ttachment is an ancillary 

or provisional remedy to aid in the collection of a money demand by seizure of property 

in advance of trial and judgment.” Kemp Bros. Constr., Inc. v. Titan Elec. Corp., 146 Cal.

App. 4th 1474, 1476 (2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

“Attachment is a harsh remedy because it causes the defendant to lose control of his 

property before the plaintiff's claim is adjudicated.” Martin v. Aboyan, 148 Cal. App. 3d 

826, 831 (1983). The moving party bears the burden to establish attachment is proper,

and “[s]ince California's attachment law is purely statutory, it must be strictly construed.” 

VFS Fin., Inc. v. CHF Express, LLC, 620 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1095 (C.D. Cal.2009). 

“Generally, an order of attachment may be issued only in an action for a claim of 

money which is based upon an express or implied contract where the total amount of 

such claim is a fixed or ‘readily ascertainable’ amount not less than $500.00.” Pos–A–

Traction, Inc. v. Kelly-Springfield Tire Co., Div. of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 112 F.

Supp. 2d 1178, 1181–82 (C.D. Cal. 2000); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 483.010(a). A right to 

attach order shall issue only if the Court finds, among other things, that “[t]he plaintiff has 

established the probable validity of the claim upon which the attachment is based.” Cal. 

Code Civ. Proc. § 484.090(a)(2). “A claim has ‘probable validity’ where it is more likely 

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

§ 481.190. 

Plaintiff has failed to show the probable validity of its claims because its 

application is conclusory in nature. Even more importantly, the parties offer 

Case 2:15-cv-02250-MCE-AC Document 22 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 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

3

contradictory evidence concerning several material aspects of the underlying contract

and purported breach. Namely, the parties dispute: (1) what goods were to be delivered 

to Defendant; (2) what goods were actually delivered and rejected; (3) what goods were 

never delivered; (4) whether the goods were in fact “custom”; and (5) whether Plaintiff 

could have mitigated any of its purported damages. 

For example, Defendant contends that Plaintiff shipped an additional 500 sheets 

of plastic that had not been ordered. According to Defendant, rather than ordering 500 

more sheets of plastic, it had instead submitted a purchase order seeking to have 500 

sheets of its original order expedited. Plaintiff nonetheless interpreted Defendant's 

submission as a new order and sent the additional plastic that Defendant was not

expecting. Defendant rejected that shipment a claims it never received the last two 

shipments it expected to be delivered under the original purchase order. Plaintiff seeks 

to recover the cost of the shipment Defendant rejected, which Plaintiff contends was 

custom-produced to Defendant’s specifications. However, Defendant also disputes 

whether it can be held liable for rejecting purportedly “custom” goods, when Plaintiff's 

own admissions indicate that some of the plastic had already been pre-cut in its 

warehouse, a circumstance suggesting that it had not been custom made in the first 

place. The logic is that if the goods were not custom, Plaintiff could have sold them to 

mitigate damages, and thus the amount recoverable, if any, for any breach is 

undetermined. 

In response to Defendant's arguments, Plaintiff claims that Defendant fabricated 

the evidence attached to its opposition papers and, in conclusory fashion, again alleges 

it is entitled to recover. In sum, there is too much at issue in this case for Plaintiff to 

have shown the probable validity of its claim.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:15-cv-02250-MCE-AC Document 22 Filed 05/27/16 Page 3 of 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

4

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Motion for Right to Attach Order and Writ of Attachment (ECF No. 10) is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-02250-MCE-AC Document 22 Filed 05/27/16 Page 4 of 4