Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/setting-aside-writ-of-attachment-303
Timestamp: 2020-07-12 03:14:55
Document Index: 721927941

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', '§ 487', '§ 485', '§ 1671', '§ 483', '§ 483', '§ 481', '§ 483', '§ 483', '§ 483', '§ 483', '§483', '§483', '§484', '§ 483', '§483', '§483', '§484', '§ 483', '§ 483', '§ 483', '§ 483', '§ 483', '§ 483', '§ 483', '§ 483', '§ 484', '§ 483', '§ 483', '§ 483', '§ 484', '§ 483', '§ 483', '§ 483', '§ 483', '§ 484', '§ 680']

Set Aside Right to Attach Order
What is an Application to Set Aside Right to Attach Order?
Purpose and Scope of Application to Set Aside Right to Attach Order
Any time after a defendant's property is attached under writ of attachment, defendant may bring a motion to set aside the right to attach order, quash the writ of attachment and have the attached property released from levy. (Civ. Code Sec. 485.240(a).) On a showing of “clear and convincing” reasons, courts have inherent power to vacate ex parte attachments without any notice (i.e., on defendant's application). (Western Steel & Ship Repair, Inc. v. RMI, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 1108, 1116-1117.)
At the hearing, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the attachment was proper. (Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1116; Western Steel & Ship Repair, Inc. v. RMI, Inc., supra, 176 Cal.App.3d at 1113.) The sole questions for the court are whether plaintiff is entitled to the right to attach order, or whether the amount to be secured by the attachment should be reduced. (Civ. Code Sec. 485.240(c).)
Grounds for Set Aside/Discharge
The grounds for a motion to discharge attachment included:
the case is not one in which attachment may properly issue,
failure of the complaint, tested by pleading rules, to state any cause of action;
defects in the undertaking or affidavit; or
issuance of the writ for an amount greater than stated in the affidavit.
(Burke v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, 71 Cal.2d 276, 279 (1969); see also Peck v. Hagen, (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1242, 608-09, stating that attachment may be discharged if it is improperly or irregularly issued or if terminated by operation of law.) The first category — improper issuance — encompassed a trial court’s erroneous determination of the probable validity of a plaintiffs’ claim. (Robinson v. Varela, (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 611, 618.)
In 1977, the Attachment Law was comprehensively revised. Western Steel & Ship Repair v. RMI, (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 1108, 1115. The authority for a motion to discharge based on improper issuance was based on former section 556, which set forth an “improper and irregular” standard for discharge of a writ. The Attachment Law no longer has this standard, and consequently there is no continued statutory basis for a motion to discharge.
Elements for Attachment
An attachment may issue only where the claim sued upon is:
a “claim... for money, ...based upon a contract, express or implied”;
of a “fixed or readily ascertainable amount not less than five hundred dollars ($500) exclusive of costs, interest, and attorney's fees”;
that is either unsecured or secured by personal property; and
that is a commercial claim.
(Civ. Code. Sec. 483.010(a).)
Attachment is expressly authorized under Civil Code section 3439.07, subdivision (a)(2), which provides that in an action for relief under the UVTA the creditor may obtain “[a]n attachment or other provisional remedy against the asset transferred or other property of the transferee” “in accordance with the procedures described in Title 6.5 (commencing with Section 481.010) of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” In other words, a prejudgment attachment must meet all the ordinary requirements for a writ of attachment.
Property Subject to Attachment: Where the defendant is a natural person, the following property is subject to attachment:
“Interests in real property except leasehold estates with unexpired terms of less than one year.
Accounts receivable, chattel paper, and general intangibles arising out of the conduct by the defendant of a trade, business, or profession, except any such individual claim with a principal balance of less than one hundred fifty dollars ($150).
Final money judgments arising out of the conduct by the defendant of a trade, business, or profession.
Money on the premises where a trade, business, or profession is conducted by the defendant and, except for the first one thousand dollars ($1,000), money located elsewhere than on such premises and deposit accounts, but, if the defendant has more than one deposit account or has at least one deposit account and money located elsewhere than on the premises where a trade, business, or profession is conducted by the defendant, the court, upon application of the plaintiff, may order that the writ of attachment be levied so that an aggregate amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) in the form of such money and in such accounts remains free of levy.
Negotiable documents of title.
Minerals or the like (including oil and gas) to be extracted.”
(CCP § 487.010(c)).
Commercial Claim and Exception
Ordinarily, a claimant may obtain a right to attach order and writ of attachment in an action against an individual defendant if the claim arises out of the conduct by the defendant of a trade, business, or profession. (Civ. Code, Sec.Sec. 483.010(c).) However, notwithstanding Civ. Code, Sec. 483.010, “an attachment may be issued in any action for financial elder abuse. (W&I Code Sec. 15657.01.)
Alternative Action - Substitute an Undertaking for Attached Property
Undertaking: Another reason for discharging the attachment and protective order is the lack of undertaking. Before issuance of a writ of attachment or a temporary protective order, the plaintiff shall file an undertaking to pay the defendant any amount the defendant may recover for any wrongful attachment by the plaintiff in the action. (Civ. Code, Sec. 489.210.) The amount of the undertaking is $10,000 unless, “upon objection to the undertaking, the court determines the probable recovery for wrongful attachment exceeds the amount of the undertaking….” (Civ. Code, Sec. 489.220.) Absent the prerequisite undertaking, a writ of attachment is void ab initio. (Vershbow v. Reiner, 231 Cal.App.3d 879, 883 (1991).)
When a writ of attachment is issued, the defendant may, by noticed motion, apply for an order permitting the defendant to substitute an undertaking for any property that has been attached or is subject to being attached, (Civ. Code, Sec. 489.310 (a); First v, Armes (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 633, 636.) The application must identify the property to be released from attachment or protected from attachment. (Civ. Code, Sec. 489.310(b).) If the motion is granted, the defendant must file an undertaking to pay the plaintiff the value of the property released, not exceeding the amount of any judgment that may be obtained in the action. (Civ. Code, Sec. 489.310(c).) A defendant may also obtain the release of a temporary protective order conditioned upon the ﬁling of a similar undertaking. (Civ. Code, Sec. 489.320,) The undertaking must be in an amount equal to the lesser of the value of the property released or prevented from being attached and the amount specified in the Writ to be secured by the attachment. (Civ. Code, Sec. 489.310 (c).)
Useful Rulings on Setting Aside Writ of Attachment
JAMES CLIFFORD, ET AL VS, DANIEL MORGAN, ET AL
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: NOTICE OF MOTION e FOR APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR RELEASE ORDER TO SET ASIDE ATTACHMENT BY SUBSTITUTION OF UNDERTAKING FOR PROPERTY AND FOR ORDER VACATING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [DEFT] DANIEL MORGAN [DEFT] MORGAN PROPERTIES, INC. RULING The Court has considered the application of defendant Morgan Properties, Inc. for an order substituting defendant's undertaking for propert...
..4056 Alexander David Court Santa Rosa, CA; 4062 Alexander David Court Santa Rosa, CA; 317 Redwood Court Corte Madera, CA; and Funds in the amount of $34,556.23 that were levied on or about 9/27/2019 from Beacon Business Bank (approximately $33,886.71 from Acct XXX5482 and $669.52 from Acct XXX5490)l IT IS ORDERED the property levied upon pursuant to the Writ of Attachment issued on 9/13/2019 (an...
Gold v. Berbey, et al.
Motion: Schoonover’s Motion to Discharge Writ of Attachment and Release Property Tentative Ruling: To grant. The writ of attachment issued August 17, 2017 is dissolved. Explanation: Any time after a defendant's property is attached under writ of attachment, defendant may bring a motion to set aside the right to attach order, quash the writ of attachment and have the attached property released from...
..v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1116; Western Steel & Ship Repair, Inc. v. RMI, Inc., supra, 176 Cal.App.3d at p. 1113.) The sole questions for the court are whether plaintiff is entitled to the right to attach order, or whether the amount to be secured by the attachment should be reduced. (Code Civ. Proc. § 485.240, subd. (c).) An attachment may issue only where the claim...
URBANA TAHOE INVESTOR, LLC v. TIMBER COVE HOLDINGS, LLC
Plaintiff’s Application for Right to Attach Order, Writ of Attachment, and Temporary Protective Order. Plaintiff filed a verified 1st amended complaint asserting causes of action for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing concerning a commercial contract to operate defendant Urbana Tahoe TC, LLC, which was allegedly entered into be...
..anced to August 15, 2019 at 1:00 p.m. and then continued to September 13, 2019 due to a medical emergency of counsel. On August 23, 2019 plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a 2nd amended complaint. The parties stipulated to vacate the long cause oral argument hearing upon the condition that if the motion for leave to file a 2nd amended complaint is denied at its hearing on October 18, 2019,...
10. Barton Perreira LLC vs Baum Vision LLC
The Motion by Defendants Baum Vision LLC and Shane Baum Motion to Set Aside Right to Attach Order and Writ of Attachment, for Release of Improperly Levied Properties, or Alternatively to Stay Enforcement of Underlying Order Pending Further Hearing is DENIED. Moving parties did not show that their interest in the attached property clearly exceeds the amount necessary to satisfy the amount to be sec...
..their cross-claims or the amount of offset pursuant to the cross-claims. Moving parties have not shown that section 3.3 of the distributorship agreement is an unenforceable liquidated damages provision. Civ. Code, § 1671(b); Purcell v. Schweitzer (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 969, 974; see also, Greentree Financial Group, Inc. v. Execute Sports, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 495, 498-501. Lastly, moving pa...
Daniel Nation v. Kimberly Bashore
Nature of Proceedings: Hearing Discharge Attachment and Release Property Levied Application to Discharge Attachment and Release Property Levied Upon Attorneys: For Plaintiff: Christi Michelon Vasquez Specially Appearing For Defendant: Martin Cohn, Raymond Rengo (Cohn Rengo) Ruling The Court grants defendant Kimberly Bashore’s Application to Discharge Attachment and Release Property Levied U...
..ation commenced this action for elder abuse and conversion against defendant Kimberly Bashore. Plaintiff alleges: Defendant is plaintiff’s stepdaughter. Defendant offered to assist plaintiff in paying his bills and managing his finances. Defendant allowed plaintiff to do so. Defendant took plaintiff’s money and wrote checks to herself and her creditors, causing damages in excess of $100,000. On J...
Jiuzhou Jena Co., Ltd. v. Yue Chung Lo aka Rodney Lo, et al., BC 618881 Tentative decision on motion to set aside right to attach order: denied Defendant M. Brothers, Inc. (“M. Brothers”) moves to set aside the right to attach order granted to Plaintiff Jiuzhou Jena Co., Ltd. (“Jena”) in the amount of $2,300,000. The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply, and re...
..s. On February 25, 2011, Jena and Defendant Infinite Digital, Inc. (“Infinite”) entered into a written contract to sell televisions in the United States. Per the contract, Jena would furnish Infinite with televisions, and Infinite was responsible for finding buyers in the United States to sell the televisions to. Under the contract, Defendants Infinite and Yue Chung Lo aka Rodney Lo (“Lo”), an...
Recent Rulings on Setting Aside Writ of Attachment
Civil - Unlimited (56)
Motion Hearing (Civil) (75)
Gregory W Pollack (7)
James C. Chalfant (90)
Jill Fannin (11)
Matthew P. Guasco (17)
Rebecca Susan Riley (11)
Thomas Anderle (21)
William D. Stewart (22)
San Diego County, CA (114)
San Francisco County, CA (18)
Santa Barbara County, CA (71)
Ventura County, CA (62)
. (§§ 483.010, 484.090; 483.010.) The damages need not be liquidated but must be measurable from the contract itself. (Kemp Bros. Constr. Inc., v. Titan Elec. Corp. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1481.) It makes no difference for attachment purposes whether the debt occurred as a sole proprietor, partner, or member of association.
3M PARTS, INC. V. P&B INTERMODAL SERVICES, LLC
Proc., § 483.010(c). 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. Code Civ. Proc., § 481.190; Lorber Industries, 175 Cal.App.3d at 535 (Attachment “allows a creditor who has applied for an attachment following the statutory guidelines and established a prima facie claim to have a debtor’s assets seized and held until final adjudication at trial.”)
JOHNSON VS. JOINER
(CCP §§ 483.010 & 484.090.) Here, Plaintiff alleges that his claims arise out of alleged breaches of the Note and Deed of Trust, both dated 3/7/07. (See Applications, ¶ 7.c; Johnson Decl. ¶ 25.) As noted previously, each application seeks to secure $2,252,500. However, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate how the requested amount is fixed or readily ascertainable, and measurable by reference to the Note or Deed of Trust themselves. (CCP § 483.010(a); see CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v.
CARR V. RODRIGUEZ
(CCP § 483.010.) The motion states that the relevant parties were in an employment relation which is considered to be a relation of contract. But it is the causes of action that must support the remedy. (See CCP § 483.010.) The Complaint and First Amended Complaint are framed in tort, for conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, Civil RICO, and a remedy of constructive trust and injunctive relief which are not really substantive causes of action in any event, see Camp v.
CCP §483.010(c). Consumer transactions cannot form a basis for attachment. CCP §483.010(c); Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn & Rossi v. Wilson, (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 1, 4 (action involving trust property was a commercial, not a consumer, transaction). Where the defendant is a natural person, the description of the property must be reasonably adequate to permit the defendant to identify the specific property sought to be attached. CCP §484.020(e).
MURGIL CAPITAL, LLC VS. ALPINE CREEK CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC
(CCP §§ 483.010 & 484.090.) Plaintiff has established that its claim is one upon which attachment may be issued since the claim is for money based on a contract. Specifically, the claim is based upon the written Promissory Note. (Pasternack Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff has also established a probable validity of its claim.
CHATSWORTH CAS, LLC VS OREN LANG
CCP §483.010(c). Consumer transactions cannot form a basis for attachment. CCP §483.010(c); Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn & Rossi v. Wilson, (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 1, 4 (action involving trust property was a commercial, not a consumer, transaction). The plaintiff may apply for a right to attach order by noticing a hearing for the order and serving the defendant with summons and complaint, notice of the application, and supporting papers any time after filing the complaint. CCP §484.010.
., § 483.010, subd. (a).) “If the action is against a defendant who is a natural person, an attachment may be issued only on a claim which arises out of the conduct by the defendant of a trade, business, or profession.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 483.010, subd. (c).) Here, Brand claims money pursuant to the invoices it sent to Encino following delivery of the requested produce.
XIUWEI YU, ET AL. VS YEN CHUAN CHANG
. § 483.010, a claim is “one upon which an attachment may be issued” in the following instances: (1) The case arises from a claim or claims for money; (2) Each claim for money is based upon a contract, express or implied; and (3) The total amount of the claim or claims is a fixed or readily ascertainable amount not less than $500. Further, in determining the amount at issue for a writ of attachment, the Court may look to Code of Civ.
(CCP § 483.010(a).) “An attachment may not be issued on a claim which is secured by any interest in real property arising from agreement ….” (CCP § 483.010(b).) Here, Plaintiff’s claim under the fourth cause of action is for an amount in excess of $500. This claim is not secured by real property. Plaintiff’s non-economic damages for the fourth cause of action are not “fixed or readily ascertainable” within the meaning of section 483.010(b).
IBORROW REIT, LP, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS LONG HA
CCP § 483.010(a)-(c). Pursuant to CCP § 483.010(a): “Except as otherwise provided by statute, an attachment may be issued only in an action on a claim or claims for money, each of which is based upon a contract, express or implied, where the total amount of the claim or claims is a fixed or readily ascertainable amount not less than five hundred dollars ($500) exclusive of costs, interest, and attorney's fees.”
Defendant points out that, under Code of Civil Procedure section 483.010, subdivision (a), an attachment order may only issue on a claim based on a contract, express or implied, where the total amount at issue is a fixed or readily ascertainable amount of not less than $500. Here, defendant contends that it has never even communicated with plaintiff, much less entered into a contract with it, so it concludes that plaintiff has no right to an attachment order against defendant.
BANK OF THE WEST V. EASYKLEAN, INC.
., § 483.010, subd. (a).) Here, the Complaint (filed on 3-2-20 under ROA No. 2) alleges that Defendant (Iabal Abdullah) failed to pay under a guarantee agreement. (For example, see Complaint, ¶¶ 17-27.) Using Code of Civil Procedure section 484.090, this claim is based on contract through the Unconditional Guarantee Agreement. (Dennison Decl., ¶¶ 6-15, Exhibits 1, 2, and 3.) Thus, the court can issue an attachment based on this claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 484.090, subd. (a)(1).)
EARTH TEK ENGINEERING CORP VS DEACON CORP ET AL
(CCP § 483.010(a).) “An attachment may not be issued on a claim which is secured by any interest in real property arising from agreement ….” (CCP § 483.010(b).) “It is a well-recognized rule of law in this state that an attachment will lie upon a cause of action for damages for a breach of contract where the damages are readily ascertainable by reference to the contract and the basis of the computation of damages appears to be reasonable and definite. [Citations.]
COMERICA BANK VS ECS CONTRACTORS INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
Code of Civil Procedure Section 483.010(a). The Note between ECS Contractors Inc. and Plaintiff and the Guaranty of such obligation executed by Guarantor establish that Plaintiff’s claim is one on which an attachment may be issued. (Martinez Declaration. ¶¶3, 11-12, 14, Exhibit 1-3). ECS Contractors Inc.’s default under the Note and the failure to pay upon demand establishes the probable validity of Plaintiff’s claim. (Martinez Declaration. ¶¶6, 9).
CITY OF SAN FERNANDO VS GREGORY MAYNE
CCP 483.010(c). Guarantor was an officer of ECS when signing the Guaranty. (Martinez Decl., Ex.2). As such, it follows that Guarantor was acting in the course of business and had a business relationship with ECS when executing the Guaranty. As such, an attachment may also properly issue against Guarantor. See Advance Transformer Company (1974) 44 CA3d 127, 143-145 (decided under substantially similar prior law). Plaintiff has sufficiently identified the property sought to be attached.
Code of Civil Procedure Section 483.010(a). The Note between ECS Contractors Inc. and Plaintiff and the Guaranty of such obligation executed by Guarantor establish that Plaintiff’s claim is one on which an attachment may be issued. (Martinez Declaration ¶¶3, 11-12, 14, Ex.1-3). ECS Contractors Inc.’s default under the Note and the failure to pay upon demand establishes the probable validity of Plaintiff’s claim. (Martinez Declaration ¶¶6, 9).
CCP 483.010(a). The Note between ECS and Plaintiff and the Guaranty of such obligation executed by Guarantor establish that Plaintiff’s claim is one on which an attachment may be issued. (Martinez Decl. ¶¶3, 11-12, 14, Ex.1-3). ECS’s default under the Note and the failure to pay upon demand establishes the probable validity of Plaintiff’s claim. (Martinez Decl. ¶¶6, 9). There is no evidence that the attachment is sought for a purpose other than the recovery on the claim upon which the attachment is based.
(CCP § 483.010 (a).) A court shall issue a right to attach order if it finds the following: (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. (4) The amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero. (CCP § 484.090 (b).)
NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC. V. WESTLAND FLORAL COMPANY CARPINTERIA, INC., ET AL.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 483.010(a), an attachment may be issued only in an action on a claim or claims for money, each of which is based upon a contract, express or implied, where the total amount of the claim or claims is a fixed or readily ascertainable amount not less than $500, exclusive of costs, interest, and attorney’s fees. An attachment also may not be issued on a claim secured by any interest in real property. (Code Civ. Proc., § 483.010, subd. (b).)
PACIFIC MERCANTILE BANK VS USMAN VAKIL
(CCP § 483.010(a) [emphasis added].) “An attachment may not be issued on a claim which is secured by any interest in real property arising from agreement, statute, or other rule or law . . . [h]owever, an attachment may be issued where the claim was originally so secured but, without any act of the plaintiff or the person to whom the security was given, the security has become valueless or has decreased in value to less than the amount then owing on the claim . . .” (CCP § 483.010(b).)
MICHAEL J . KUHL, ET AL VS. COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY ENERGY CORPORATION, ET AL
Barak Const, (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 845, 852-853; Code Civ, Proc. § 483.010(a), § 484.090(a).) As a predicate for issuing a right to attach order, the court must make the following ﬁndings: (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.
MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION TO SET ASIDE RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER AND RELEASE ATTACHED PROPERTY (CCP § 680.135) TENTATIVE RULING: Judgment Debtor Tesha D. Gatewood’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Set Aside Right To Attach Order And Release Attached Property are CONTINUED TO MAY 14, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. ANALYSIS: Plaintiff Ford Motor Credit Company (hereafter “Judgment Creditor”) filed the instant action for breach of contract against Defendant Tesha D.