Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06246/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06246-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CHRISTOPHER CUMMINGS
Defendant
Jonathan Cummings
Counter-defendant
Hilary Hegener
Plaintiff
David Lee
Defendant
Mark Robinson
Defendant
Worktap, Inc.
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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

JONATHAN CUMMINGS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WORKTAP, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-06246-SBA (SK)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING APPLICATION FOR 

WRIT OF ATTACHMENT

Regarding Docket Nos. 22, 25

Plaintiff Jonathan Cummings and Hilary Hegener filed an Ex Parte Application for a Right 

to Attach Order against Defendant Worktap, Inc. (“Worktap”). (Dkt. 22.) The Application was 

referred to this Court for the preparation of a report and recommendation. (Dkt. 25.) In turn, this 

Court provided Worktap with an opportunity to file an opposition and set this matter for hearing. 

(Dkt. 29). Having reviewed the parties’ pleadings and relevant portions of the file and having 

heard oral argument, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT IN PART and 

DENY IN PART the application for writ of attachment. Specifically, the Court RECOMMENDS 

that the District Court issue a writ of attachment in the amount of $150,000 against Defendant 

Worktap, Inc., and that the Court require Plaintiffs to post an undertaking in the amount of 

$15,000.

A. Factual Background

In their Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege breach of contract against Defendant 

Worktap, Inc. and against individual defendants Mark Robinson and David Lee under a theory of 

alter ego liability. (Dkt. 21.) Plaintiffs allege that they entered into two sets of agreements in 

2015 and 2016 with Worktap in which Plaintiffs purchased promissory notes from Worktap. (Id.) 

The amount of the first promissory note (the “2015 Note”) was $150,000, and the Maturity Date 

for the 2015 Note was April 30, 2016. (Id., ¶20, Ex. 1.) The amount of the second promissory 

Case 4:17-cv-06246-SBA Document 42 Filed 02/02/18 Page 1 of 6
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

note (the “2016 Note”) was $50,000, and the Maturity Date for the 2016 Note was January 31, 

2017. (Id., ¶29, Ex. 2.) Plaintiffs attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Second Amended Complaint 

the copies of the Note Purchase Agreement and corresponding Convertible Promissory Note in 

2015 (the “2015 Agreements”) and the Note Purchase Agreement and corresponding Convertible 

Promissory Notes in 2016 (the “2016 Agreements”). (Id., Exs. 1 and 2.) Plaintiffs allege that 

Worktap breached the terms of the agreements by failing to pay Plaintiffs when due. (Id., ¶¶ 21,

30) Plaintiff Jonathan Cummings alleges in a declaration submitted with this application: “A true 

and correct copy [sic] of the April 13, 2015 Note Purchase Agreement and the April 13, 2015 

[Convertible Promissory] Note are attached as Exhibit 1 to the Second Amended Complaint.” 

(Dkt. 22-2.) He also alleges in the same declaration: “A true and correct copy [sic] of the 

January 27, 2016 Note Purchase Agreement and the January 27, 2016 [Convertible Promissory] 

Note are attached as Exhibit 2 to the Second Amended Complaint.” (Id.) The Cummings 

Declaration does not attach any of the agreements as exhibits.1 

B. Standard for Writ of Attachment

Federal courts can grant an application for a writ of attachment, applying the applicable 

state court procedure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 64. The applicable law from the State of California is 

codified at Cal. Code Civ. P. §481.010 et seq. A party seeking a writ of attachment under 

California law must show the following: (1) that the claim is one on which an attachment may 

issue, (2) that the plaintiff has established the probable validity of the claim, (3) that the 

attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery of the claim upon which the 

attachment is based, (4) that the property sought is not exempt from attachment, and (5) that the 

amount secured by the attachment is greater than zero. Cal. Code Civ. P. §484.090(a).2

/ / /

 

1

 Worktap submitted a separate pleading objecting to the April 2015 Agreements. (Dkt. 

33.) The Court overrules those objections and finds that Jonathan Cummings’ Declaration 

authenticates the 2015 Agreements and 2016 Agreements that were attached to the Second 

Amended Complaint. The Federal Rules of Evidence do not require that a document be attached 

to a declaration for admissibility. Fed.R.Evid. 901, 1002 and 1003. The Court does not base this 

ruling on any of the other disputed evidence as noted in the objections, as that disputed evidence 

addresses Worktap’s ability to pay, which is not a factor for consideration here. 

2

If the Court considers the application for writ of attachment without providing notice to 

the opposing party, the plaintiff must show great or irreparable injury. Cal. Code Civ. P. 

§485.010. Because this Court is considering the application for writ of attachment after providing 

notice to defendants, with an opposition from defendants, this standard does not apply.

Case 4:17-cv-06246-SBA Document 42 Filed 02/02/18 Page 2 of 6
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

C. Application of Standards 

There is no dispute that Plaintiffs satisfy the first, fourth, and fifth prongs of the standard. 

Here, the claim is one upon which an attachment may issue; the property sought is not exempt; 

and the amount sought is greater than zero. The parties dispute the second and third prong noted 

above. Worktap argues that Plaintiffs cannot establish the probable validity of the claim and that 

the attachment is sought for a purpose other than recovering a claim.

1. Probable Validity of Claim

Plaintiffs have established the probable validity of their claim for breach of contract for the 

2015 Agreements but have not established the probable validity of their claim for breach of 

contract for the 2016 Agreements. A plaintiff can establish probable validity by showing that “it 

is more likely than not that the plaintiff will obtain a judgment against the defendant on the

claim.” Cal. Code Civ. P. §481.190. A plaintiff can show, with a declaration, that there is a 

contract, that the defendant breached the contract. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Metric & Inch 

Tools, Inc., 614 F.Supp.2d 1056, 1062-1063 (C.D. Cal. 2009). If the defendant opposes the 

application, the “court must consider the relative merits of the positions of the respective parties 

and make a determination of the probable outcome of that litigation. Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly 

Glen Music, Inc., 166 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1120 (1985). 

a. 2015 Agreements

Worktap concedes that the 2015 Agreements are valid and that Worktap has not repaid 

Plaintiffs amounts due under the 2015 Agreements. At oral argument, Worktap conceded that 

Worktap received a total of $200,000 from Plaintiffs and that Worktap has not repaid those funds. 

Worktap argues instead that the Maturity Date for the 2015 Note should have been changed from 

April 30, 2016 to July 28, 2018 when Plaintiffs entered into the 2016 Agreements. Worktap 

argues that, when Plaintiffs provided $50,000 to Worktap in 2016, the agreements should have 

reflected that the Maturity Date of the 2015 Note was extended from April 30, 2016 to July 28, 

2018. Worktap argues that the 2016 Agreements provided to the Court do not reflect that 

extension because the 2016 Agreements were forged by Worktap’s Senior Vice President of 

Finance Christopher Cummings, who is the brother of Plaintiff Jonathan Cummings and brotherin-law of Plaintiff Hilary Hegener. (Dkt. 41-1, ¶¶8-9.) However, Worktap does not provide a 

valid version of the 2016 Agreements and does not identify the specific terms of the 2016 

Case 4:17-cv-06246-SBA Document 42 Filed 02/02/18 Page 3 of 6
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

Agreements that Worktap believes control the 2016 Note. 

Even if Christopher Cummings forged the 2016 Agreements that were provided to the 

Court, as discussed further below, Worktap does not and cannot show that Worktap and Plaintiffs 

entered into an agreement altering the Maturity Date of the 2015 Note from April 30, 2016 to July 

28, 2018. Specifically, Worktap argues that in 2016, Plaintiffs and Worktap should have changed 

the Maturity Date of the 2015 Note: “Therefore, had Jonathan [Cummings] proceeded in a lawful 

manner to obtain the preferred terms he obtained in January 2016, with a correct, approved 2016 

Note, and had his 2015 Note been properly amended and approved, Plaintiffs’ Notes would be 

virtually identical to all of the other investors’ notes and not be mature until July 28, 2018.” (Dkt. 

41-1, ¶24.) Worktap claims that all other noteholders who provided more funds to Worktap in 

2016, pursuant to similar agreements with Worktap, extended the Maturity Dates of their 2015 

Notes to July 28, 2018. (Dkt 41-1, ¶¶ 23 - 26). However, Worktap does not provide any evidence 

to show that the Maturity Date for the 2015 Note for Plaintiffs was actually changed to July 28, 

2018 and that Worktap was not required to repay the amount by April 30, 2016. Given that 

Worktap cannot show that it was excused from repaying the funds under the 2015 Note by April 

30, 2016, there is probable validity for Plaintiffs’ first claim for breach of contract regarding the 

2015 Agreements. Worktap concedes that the amount was loaned; the express terms of the 2015 

Agreements show that the Maturity Date passed; and Worktap concedes that it has not repaid 

Plaintiffs. 

b. 2016 Agreements

Worktap argues that the 2016 Agreements attached as Exhibit 2 to the Second Amended 

Complaint are forged. (Dkt. 34.) Robinson, the signatory to the 2016 Agreements attached to the 

Second Amended Complaint, alleges that he first saw the 2016 Agreements in January 2017, even 

though he had repeatedly asked Christopher Cummings for them before that time. (Id.) Robinson 

alleges that he did not authorize his signature on the 2016 Agreements attached to the Second 

Amended Complaint and that his signature for the 2016 Note appears to be identical to a signature 

from an unrelated document. (Id. at ¶ 11 and Exs. A and B.) Even a cursory review of the 

signatures for the 2016 Note shows that the signatures on the 2016 Agreements are identical to the 

signature from another document and contain a strange line above the signature. The signature 

page is separate from the other pages and does not have a date. And Robinson’s signatures on the 

Case 4:17-cv-06246-SBA Document 42 Filed 02/02/18 Page 4 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

two 2016 Agreements are also identical. At oral argument, Plaintiff argued that the reason that the 

signatures are identical is that Christopher Cummings was authorized to use an electronic 

signature for Robinson. Robinson disputes that fact (Dkt. 34, ¶ 10), and Plaintiffs provided no 

declaration or testimony from Christopher Cummings regarding his use of Robinson’s signature. 

The only evidence before the Court on this issue is that Robinson did not authorize the use of his 

signature for the 2016 Agreements provided to the Court.

Thus, Plaintiffs fail to show probable validity for their second claim for breach of contract 

regarding the 2016 Agreements. Worktap has presented compelling evidence that the 2016 

Agreements may have been forged. Although the parties agree that there was some type of 

agreement for Plaintiffs’ providing Worktap with $50,000 in 2016, Worktap has called into 

question the terms of the 2016 Note. If the 2016 Note is forged, then it is not clear what the 

Maturity Date is. (Dkt. 41-1, ¶ 10-11.) It is axiomatic that a claim for breach of contract requires 

the existence of a contract. See, e.g., Hamilton Beach Brands, 614 F.Supp.2d 1056, 1062-1063 

Given that Plaintiffs have not provided evidence of a valid agreement, they have not proved 

probable validity of their claim for breach of the 2016 Agreements.

c. Improper Purpose

Worktap also argues that Plaintiffs seek this writ of attachment for an improper purpose. 

As noted above, Plaintiffs must show that the attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the 

recovery of the claim upon which the attachment is based. Worktap questions Plaintiffs’ motives 

in refusing a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment and instead seeking a writ of attachment. (Dkt. 31 at 5:7-

17.) Worktap suggests that the application for a writ of attachment was actually submitted as 

retribution for Worktap’s action in terminating the employment of Christopher Cummings. (Id.) 

Therefore, Worktap argues, the writ of attachment is sought for an unlawful purpose. Worktap 

provides no evidence to support its claim that Plaintiffs seek a writ of attachment for a purpose 

other than to recover the claim. The Court will not speculate on the basis for Plaintiffs’ refusal of 

the Rule 68 offer, and the Court does not find that the refusal of a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment 

shows that Plaintiffs are seeking this writ of attachment for a purpose other than to recover the 

claim. 

/ / /

Case 4:17-cv-06246-SBA Document 42 Filed 02/02/18 Page 5 of 6
6

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

d. Interest and Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Plaintiffs seek the amounts on both the 2015 Note and the 2016 Note, interest, and 

attorneys’ fees that are allegedly authorized pursuant to the 2015 Note and the 2016 Note. The 

Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court DENY the request for interest and attorneys’ fees. 

With regard to interest and attorneys’ fees and costs, the amounts sought encompass both notes, 

but as stated above, Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show probable validity of the second 

claim for breach of contract regarding the 2016 Note. Given that Plaintiffs have not provided 

estimates of interest and attorneys’ fees and costs only for the 2015 Note, for which Plaintiffs have 

shown probable validity, including the total amount in a writ of attachment is not appropriate.

The Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court issue a writ of attachment in the 

amount of $150,000 against Defendant Worktap, Inc. and that Plaintiffs post an undertaking of 

$15,000. A party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation within 

fourteen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); 

Civil L.R. 72-3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2018

______________________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-06246-SBA Document 42 Filed 02/02/18 Page 6 of 6