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

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

---

1

18-CV-538-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 and NORMERICA 

INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LITTERPURRFECT, L.P. and IN 

BUCCO AL LUPO, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-CV-538-CAB-MDD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO REDUCE THE 

AMOUNT OF THE WRIT OF 

ATTACHMENT OR TO INCREASE 

THE AMOUNT OF THE 

UNDERTAKING

[Doc. No. 89]

LITTERPURRFECT, L.P.,

Counter Claimant,

v.

NORMERICA INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION, NORMERICA INC., ,

Counter Defendants.

Case 3:18-cv-00538-CAB-MSB Document 98 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-CV-538-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 May 4, 2018, after briefing and a hearing attended by both sides, the Court 

granted an application for writ of attachment filed by Plaintiffs Normerica International 

Corporation and Normerica, Inc. (together, “Normerica”). The order stated that Normerica 

has the right to attach the property of Defendant LitterPurrfect, L.P. in the amount of 

$1,489,171.98 upon Normerica’s posting of an undertaking in the amount of $10,000. 

[Doc. No. 21.] LitterPurrfect and its general partner and co-defendant In Bucco Al Lupo, 

Inc. (“IBAL”) now move to have the amount of the writ of attachment reduced, or in the 

alternative, to have the amount of Normerica’s undertaking increased. The motion has 

been fully briefed, and the Court deems it suitable for submission without oral argument. 

Normerica points out numerous procedural irregularities with the motion, including 

whether it is a properly filed motion for reconsideration or motion for relief from judgment 

under the federal rules, and whether the California Code of Civil Procedure (which 

provides for attachment in the first instance) allows a defendant who contested the original 

imposition of a writ to later seek a reduction in the amount of the writ. Although these 

arguments may have merit, the Court need not address them because even assuming that 

Defendants’ motion is procedurally proper, the Court is not persuaded that either a 

reduction in the amount of the writ or an increase in the amount of the undertaking is 

warranted.

As for the request for a reduction of the amount of the writ, Defendants’ motion is 

premised on what they claim is “new evidence” that the writ was overstated by 

$416,440.13, the amount of one invoice for packaging submitted by Normerica with its 

original writ application. Defendants’ arguments, however, are premised on speculation 

that the packaging invoice is duplicative, and speculation that Normerica has reused the 

packaging for a competing product it now sells. The only evidence Defendants offer as

supporting its speculation is out-of-context testimony from a Normerica executive and a 

declaration from a Canadian consumer who claims to have purchased LitterPurrfect’s cat 

litter and Normerica’s competing “Simply Purrfect” cat litter and thinks that the jugs in 

which the litter is contained are the same type of jug. Even assuming the admissibility of 

Case 3:18-cv-00538-CAB-MSB Document 98 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-CV-538-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

this random consumer’s opinion (a questionable proposition at best), Normerica has 

offered testimony from its executive that both explains her deposition testimony and 

explains why the consumer believed the cat litter jugs to be similar even though they could 

not have been the same jugs that are the subject of the packaging invoice to LitterPurrfect. 

The executive further stated unequivocally that Normerica did not use the packaging that 

was the subject of the invoice to LitterPurrfect for Simply Purrfect cat litter, and that the 

LitterPurrfect packaging remains in Normerica’s possession. Accordingly, Defendants 

have not demonstrated that a reduction in the amount of the writ of attachment is warranted.

Defendants’ alternative request that amount of the undertaking be increased also 

fails. As stated in the Court’s prior order, 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.”’” [Doc. No. 21 at 

9 (quoting N. Hollywood Marble Co. v. Superior Court, 157 Cal. App. 3d 683, 690 (Cal. 

Ct. App. 1984).] Defendants made no arguments as to the amount of the undertaking in 

opposition to Plaintiffs’ writ application, and therefore have waived any argument as to 

what amount of undertaking is reasonable. Regardless, Defendants once again make no 

arguments for why the undertaking is insufficient to indemnify them for damages if the 

attachment is deemed wrongful. Accordingly, there are no grounds to increase the amount 

of the undertaking.

In light of the foregoing, Defendants’ motion is DENIED.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00538-CAB-MSB Document 98 Filed 01/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3