Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04059/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04059-1/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

Case No. C 03-4059-JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATIONS FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS ETC. 

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 9/27/05**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

XEROX CORPORATION,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

FAR WESTERN GRAPHICS, INC, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 03-4059-JF (PVT)

ORDER (1) GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR

RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER AND

WRIT OF ATTACHMENT AGAINST

DEFENDANT FAR WESTERN

GRAPHICS; AND (2) GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR

RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER AND

WRIT OF ATTACHMENT AGAINST

DEFENDANT MOTEKAITIS

[Doc. Nos. 117, 119, 121, 122]

On July 8, 2005, the Court granted the motion of Plaintiff Xerox Corporation (“Xerox”)

for partial summary judgment as to its sixth claim for relief against Defendant Far Western

Graphics, Inc. (“FWG”) for breach of a promissory note and its eighth claim for relief against

Defendant David Motekaitis (“Motekaitis”) for breach of a personal guaranty agreement on the

note. The Court granted partial summary judgment on these claims in the amount of

$104,130.10 (the principal balance on the note) plus interest and attorneys’ fees. Xerox now

seeks writs of attachment in this amount against both FWG and Motekaitis. The Court has

Case 5:03-cv-04059-JF Document 133 Filed 09/27/05 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

Case No. C 03-4059-JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATIONS FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS ETC. 

(JFLC2)

considered the parties’ briefing as well as the oral arguments presented at the hearing on

September 23, 2005. For the reasons discussed below, the motions will be granted as to both

defendants.

Rule 64 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:

At the commencement of and during the course of an action, all remedies

providing for seizure of person or property for the purpose of securing satisfaction

of the judgment ultimately to be entered in the action are available under the

circumstances and in the manner provided by law of the state in which the district

court is held, existing at the time the remedy is sought . . . The remedies thus

available include . . . attachment . . .

The effect of Rule 64 is to incorporate state law to determine the availability of prejudgment

remedies for seizure of property to secure satisfaction of a judgment ultimately entered.” Post-ATraction, Inc. v. Kelley-Springfield Tire Co., 112 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1181 (C.D. Cal. 2000). The

burden is on the moving party to establish grounds for an order of attachment. Loeb and Loeb v.

Beverly Glen Music, Inc., 166 Cal. App.3d 1110, 1116 (1985).

Under California law, a party may obtain a right to attach order if the following factors

are met: (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; and (4) the amount to be secured by the attachment is

greater than zero. Cal. Civ. P. Code § 484.090(a). The instant contract claims for money are

claims upon which an attachment may be issued. See Cal. Civ. P. Code § 483.010(a) (providing

that an attachment may be issued on a claim for money, based upon contract, where the total

amount of the claim is fixed and ascertainable in an amount not less than $500). Xerox has

established actual validity of the claims, because Xerox prevailed upon its motions for partial

summary judgment as to its sixth and eighth claims. There is no indication that the attachments

are being sought for any improper purpose. Finally, the amount to be secured is greater than

zero.

Defendants suggested that the money claims upon which the attachment applications are

based are not fixed and ascertainable, because Defendants may be entitled to a setoff for claims

Case 5:03-cv-04059-JF Document 133 Filed 09/27/05 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

Case No. C 03-4059-JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATIONS FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS ETC. 

(JFLC2)

Defendants are asserting against Xerox in this action. The Court’s Order of July 8, 2005, which

granted partial summary judgment for Xerox on its sixth and eighth claims in the amount of

$104,130.10 plus interest and attorneys’ fees, stated expressly that claims under the note are not

subject to setoff. Defendants also suggest that it would be inappropriate for the Court to issue

two attachment orders, each in the full amount of the outstanding principal on the note. The

Court is satisfied that Xerox is not seeking a double recovery, but rather is seeking to secure its

ability to collect the outstanding balance of the note, and that two separate attachment orders are

appropriate under the circumstances of this case. Defendant Motekaitis suggests that some of his

property may be exempt from attachment, but states that he cannot demonstrate what property

may be exempt because Xerox has not identified the property to be attached with sufficient

specificity. Xerox properly has identified categories of property to be attached; this identification

is sufficient to place Defendant Motekaitis on notice that Xerox is targeting all of his property

that is subject to attachment. See Bank of America National Trust & Sav. Ass’n v. Salinas

Nissan, Inc., 207 Cal.App.3d 260, 268 (1989). Motekaitis thus has the burden to demonstrate

exemption for any of his personal property, see id., and he has not met this burden.

Accordingly, Xerox’s motions are GRANTED. The Court has signed Xerox’s proposed

orders in conjunction with the instant order. 

 

DATED: 9/27/05

/s/ electronic signature authorized 

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-04059-JF Document 133 Filed 09/27/05 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

Case No. C 03-4059-JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATIONS FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS ETC. 

(JFLC2)

This Order was served on the following persons:

Kathryn S. Diemer kdiemer@diemerwhitman.com

Ross A. Spector ross.spector@worldnet.att.net

Ross A. Spector ross.spector@worldnet.att.net

Judith L. Whitman jwhitman@diemerwhitman.com

Case 5:03-cv-04059-JF Document 133 Filed 09/27/05 Page 4 of 4