Court Opinion

ID: 9895052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 22:03:27.859549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:38.695465
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/3/23 West Casitas v. Swing House Stages CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION FIVE

 WEST CASITAS, LLC,                                           B320621

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                          (Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct. No. 21STCV37974)
           v.

 SWING HOUSE STAGES, INC.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, James C. Chalfant, Judge. Affirmed.
     Weinberg Gonser Frost, Christopher L. Frost and Ashley R.
Morris; Rosen Saba and Michael J. Peng for Defendant and
Appellant.
     Shumener, Odson & Oh, Robert J. Odson and Daniel E.
French for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                   _____________________
       Tenant Swing House Stages, Inc. appeals from an order
granting landlord West Casitas, LLC’s application for a writ of
attachment to secure $608,173.12 in alleged unpaid rent.1 The
sole issue on appeal is whether tenant may apply an offset to the
attachment for civil penalties it claims landlord must pay to
tenant for violating COVID 19-related government emergency
orders. Tenant alleges landlord illegally charged it interest and
late fees on the unpaid rent. Because civil penalties may not
lawfully be offset from attached funds in these circumstances, we
affirm the order.
     FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       In 2014, tenant and landlord entered into a commercial
lease for property located on Casitas Avenue in the City of Los
Angeles. The 10-year lease covered the period from February 18,
2014, to February 17, 2024, with an option to renew. The lease
specified annual increases in the monthly rent and by
February 18, 2020, rent was $28,500 per month with a ten
percent late fee if payment was not made within five days of the
due date.
1.   COVID-related Legislation
       On March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a
state of emergency in California arising from the COVID-19
pandemic. By executive order, Governor Newsom authorized
local governments to limit residential and commercial evictions

1      Attachment is a prejudgment remedy that grants a plaintiff
creditor a lien on the defendant debtor’s assets until final
adjudication of a claim brought by the plaintiff. (Code of Civ.
Proc., § 482.010 et seq; Royals v. Lu (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 328,
345.)

                                2
for nonpayment of rent and other fees due to the impact of
COVID-19 restrictions on a tenant’s income. At the same time,
the County Health Officer issued safer-at-home orders that
compelled the temporary closure of nonessential retail
businesses, of which tenant was one.2
      a.    The County Resolution
       In response to the Governor’s executive order, the Los
Angeles County Board of Supervisors placed a temporary
moratorium on evictions of residential and commercial tenants
via successive emergency orders or resolutions, each of which
“supersede[d] all previously issued resolutions and executive
orders concerning the Protections within the County.”3 The
Resolution did not forgive a tenant’s obligation to pay rent but
allowed tenants additional time to repay any amounts due and
encouraged the parties to agree to a payment plan. Relevant to
this appeal, the Resolution prohibited landlords from charging
late fees and interest on the unpaid rent during the moratorium
period, which was extended to 2022 for commercial tenants. It
also granted tenants civil remedies against landlords for violation
of its provisions. The parties do not challenge the validity of the
Resolution.

2    The record indicates tenant was able to reopen its business
sometime after the safer-at-home orders were allowed to expire.

3     The trial court took judicial notice of the various County
resolutions. We do not describe each iteration but identify
relevant parts when the terms and provisions material to this
appeal were implemented. Unless specifically identified by the
date of enactment, we will refer to the resolutions collectively as
the “Resolution” since only the most recent one applies.

                                 3
       On March 19, 2020, the Chair of the Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors issued an executive order that prohibited a
landlord from evicting a tenant for nonpayment of rent, late
charges or other fees, “if the Tenant demonstrates an inability to
pay” and “has provided notice to the Landlord within seven (7)
days after the date that rent was due . . . .” The executive order
did not specify how a tenant could demonstrate an inability to
pay. The executive order was ratified by the Board of
Supervisors on March 31, 2020, via Resolution and the Board
included a ban on rent increases in the Resolution.
       On September 1, 2020, the Board of Supervisors revised the
Resolution to prohibit “interest or late fees on unpaid rent or
other amounts otherwise owed, during the Moratorium Period.
Landlords are prohibited from retroactively imposing or
collecting any such amounts following the termination of the
Moratorium.” A landlord who violated this prohibition “shall be
punishable as set forth in Chapter 2.68 of the County Code.”
Chapter 2.68.320 specifies that any violation of an emergency
rule, regulation, order or directive “is a misdemeanor, punishable
by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or by imprisonment for a period not
to exceed six months, or both . . . .”
       On February 23, 2021, the Board of Supervisors increased
the amount of administrative fines and civil penalties against
landlords under the Resolution as follows: “The maximum
administrative fine for violations of Paragraph VIII of this
Resolution [prohibiting charging late fees or interest on unpaid
rent] is temporarily increased for the duration of this Moratorium
from $1,000 to up to $5,000 per violation for each day the
violation continues . . . .”

                                4
       For the first time, commercial tenants employing between
10 and 100 people were required to “provide written
documentation demonstrating financial hardship, along with
notice of inability to pay rent,” to the Landlord within seven days
after the date that rent was due.4
       On July 20, 2021, the County Department of Consumer and
Business Affairs (DCBA) issued revised guidelines to aid in the
implementation of the Resolution. The DCBA suggested the
written documentation of financial hardship could include bank
statements, gross sales receipts, and evidence of expenses, all
demonstrating a change from before the pandemic and after, as
well as any applicable federal, state, and local health officer
orders which demonstrated restrictions on business activity
relevant to a tenant. The DCBA further stated that any tenant
protections identified in the County Resolution would constitute
affirmative defenses in any unlawful detainer or civil action for
repayment of rental debt. It is undisputed that tenant never
provided bank statements, sales receipts, or evidence of expenses
to landlord to demonstrate financial hardship.
       In the January 25, 2022 Resolution, the Board of
Supervisors stated the eviction moratorium (now termed tenant
protections) for commercial tenants would end on January 31,
2022. This is the Resolution upon which the parties relied in
their briefing in the trial court. It contained the provisions
described above, including the prohibition against charging late
fees and interest, civil remedies for tenants, and civil penalties
for violation of its provisions.

4     It is undisputed that tenant employed between 10 and 100
people during the relevant time.

                                5
       On March 6, 2023, when it filed its respondent’s brief in
this court, landlord also requested judicial notice of the most
recent Resolution dated January 24, 2023, which states that “all
provisions stated [in the Resolution] shall apply commencing
March 4, 2020, and shall remain in effect until March 31, 2023,
unless extended or repealed by the Board of Supervisors. This
Resolution supersedes all previously issued resolutions and
executive orders concerning the Protections within the County.”
We granted that request.
       Paragraph VIII of the current Resolution reiterates that
“Landlords shall not charge interest or late fees on unpaid rent or
other amounts otherwise owed, from March 1, 2020, through
March 31, 2023. Landlords are prohibited from retroactively
imposing or collecting any such amounts following the
termination or expiration of this Resolution.”
       The Resolution also continues to authorize civil remedies
and penalties for violations of its protections: “Any Tenant . . .
may enforce the provisions of Paragraphs V, VI, VII, VIII or IX of
this Resolution by means of a civil action seeking civil remedies
and/or equitable relief.[5] Landlords shall be subject to civil
penalties pursuant to Sections 8.52.170 and 8.57.140 of the
County Code. The maximum civil penalty for violation of
Paragraph IX of this Resolution [addressing harassment and

5     Paragraph V addresses the general applicability of the
Resolution, including deadlines and jurisdiction; Paragraph VI
describes the eviction protections; Paragraph VII prohibits rent
increases in Unincorporated County areas; Paragraph VIII
prohibits, among other things, interest and late fees on unpaid
rent from March 1, 2020, through March 31, 2023.

                                 6
retaliation protections] is increased from $1,000 to up to $5,000
per violation for each day the violation continues . . . .” 6
      b.    Other State and Local Measures
      From 2020 to 2023, state and local governments enacted
similar measures to halt commercial and residential evictions for
nonpayment of rent due to the financial impacts of COVID-19.
(See Code Civ. Proc., § 1179.01, et seq.; LAMC Ordinance No.
186606.) Although the record contains copies of some of these
statutes and ordinances, the parties generally rely on the County
Resolution as described above and we need not discuss in detail
the other measures enacted.
2.    The Complaint and Cross-complaint
       On October 14, 2021, landlord sued tenant for breach of the
lease, seeking unpaid rent in excess of $430,000. Landlord

6      The parties dispute whether the civil penalties identified in
this paragraph apply to commercial landlords. Chapter 8.52.160
of the Los Angeles County Code sets out the administrative fines
applicable to violations of the Rent Stabilization and Tenant
Protections Ordinance for residential tenants while chapter
8.57.130 sets out the administrative fines for violation of the
Mobilehome Rent Stabilization and Mobilehome Owner
Protections Ordinance.
       We need not decide whether the “civil remedies” that a
tenant may recover via a civil enforcement action includes the
“civil penalties” of up to $5,000 per violation for each day the
violation continues. Even if tenant may recover civil penalties
under this paragraph, we conclude, as discussed below, that the
civil penalties referenced in this paragraph are not claims upon
which an attachment may issue.

                                 7
alleged tenant stopped paying rent regularly beginning in April
2020.
       Tenant filed a cross-complaint against landlord, its parent
company, and the parent company’s owner and employees for
breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of fair dealing,
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, concealment, discrimination,
sexual harassment, unfair competition, and violation of various
statutory duties.7
       Relevant to this appeal, tenant alleged in the eleventh and
final cause of action that landlord harassed tenant by suggesting
tenant committed an incurable default of the lease without any
evidence or notification, illegally assessed late charges and
interest, and filed a lawsuit for collection of rent before payment
was due in violation of the Resolution timelines. For these

7       The first eight causes of action in the cross-complaint are
not directed to the claim of illegally charging late fees and
interest but are based on the allegation that an employee of
landlord’s parent company began a romantic relationship with
tenant’s CFO without her knowledge that he was employed with
landlord. Landlord then used the personal and confidential
information disclosed by tenant’s CFO during this dating
relationship to renegotiate the lease between the parties. Tenant
further alleged that when its CFO discovered landlord’s role in
her dating relationship, she ended the relationship. She then
was subjected to unreasonable, unlawful, and harassing demands
during the lease negotiations.
       In the ninth cause of action for declaratory relief, tenant
alleged it was excused from payment of rent under Civil Code
section 1511 by the COVID-19 pandemic. In the tenth cause of
action, tenant alleged that landlord violated the “COVID-19
Small Landlord and Homeowner Relief Act of 2020” under Civil
Code section 3273.15. Those claims are not before us.

                                 8
violations, landlord was subject to a civil action for fines of up to
$5,000 per violation per day. Tenant specifically alleged, “To the
present day, approximately 316 days have elapsed since Cross-
Defendant’s [sic] began their violation of the moratorium, which
multiplied by $5,000 per day for a single violation means, as at
the present time, Cross-Defendants and each of them are subject
to a fine and penalty of a minimum of $1,751,000 and accruing.”8
3.    The Attachment Proceedings
      On April 4, 2022, landlord filed an application for a right to
attach order and writ of attachment against tenant’s property
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 483.010.9 The
parties do not challenge that CCP section 483.010 applies in this
setting.
      Landlord submitted a declaration from landlord’s property
manager demonstrating tenant stopped paying rent beginning
April 2020 and thereafter only made sporadic payments. The
property manager presented a ledger of rent owed that showed
tenant failed to pay $608,173.12 under the lease, not including
any late fees. The property manager also stated tenant never

8     Tenant alleged landlord’s violation of the Resolution began
on March 30, 2021. The cross-complaint was filed March 28,
2022, 363 days later. On appeal, tenant calculates landlord’s
exposure to be $10,990,000.

9      CCP 483.010, subdivision (a), provides: “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.”

                                  9
provided landlord with financial documentation such as bank
statements substantiating an inability to pay rent due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, aside from a self-prepared financial
statement for the year 2021. Landlord argued tenant was
required to submit supporting documentation under the
Resolution and the DCBA guidelines.
       Tenant opposed landlord’s petition, arguing, in pertinent
part, that tenant was protected by the various state and local
eviction moratoriums and landlord’s purported damages were
offset by penalties to which tenant was entitled given landlord’s
violations of the County’s Resolution. Tenant asserted landlord’s
rent ledger demonstrated it illegally accrued interest and late
fees from October 2020 to September 2021 and landlord
attempted to pressure tenant to sign a new lease agreement that
would have included the late fees and interest. Lastly, tenant
argued landlord illegally seized tenant’s security deposit in
violation of the resolution’s prohibition against such conduct.
According to tenant, “[i]f this [trial] Court were to calculate
violations for Landlord’s interest charge accrual (submitted
June 18, 2021), Landlord’s late fee accruals (from October 8, 2020
through September 2, 2021) and Landlord’s seizure of Swing
House’s security deposit on September 2, 2021 – at a rate of
$5,000 per violation, per day – Landlord is facing the potential of
millions of dollars in penalties.”
       In its opposition, tenant submitted its unverified cross-
complaint alleging facts “on information and belief.” Tenant’s
chief financial officer additionally attested in a declaration that
tenant “predominantly” ceased business operations from March
2020 through August 2020, and alerted landlord about the impact

                                10
of COVID-19 on tenant’s business via email correspondence dated
2020 and 2021, which was attached.
       Correspondence filed by the parties reflected their efforts to
negotiate payment of the accrued rent, including their disputes
regarding landlord’s attempt to include interest and late fees in
its calculation of what was owed. In one email dated October 14,
2020, landlord stated, “Please note that we have withheld
charging late fees for the unpaid rents since March which would
total $15,657.10. As an incentive, I would be willing to waive
these fees if we are able to reach an agreement on the rent and
the lien within 10 days. Otherwise, these fees will be added to
the balance due on October 25th.”
       In May and June of 2021, the parties attempted to
negotiate a new lease, which contained a timeline for payment of
past due rent and interest beginning January 2022 “[p]rovided
that there is no law, ordinance or regulation related to the
Pandemic that would prohibit Landlord from charging interest on
past due rent.” Tenant objected to the late fees and interest,
citing to the prohibitions in the Resolution. Landlord ultimately
agreed not to charge interest through December 31, 2021, and
waived the late fees but asserted it believed it could begin
charging interest beginning January 1, 2022. A lease ledger
dated September 9, 2021, showed late fees were charged on paper
from March 2020 to August 2021, but a notation of “reverse [late]
fees due to pandemic” showed a credit of $31,351.00 for that time
period.
       At oral argument on the attachment motion, tenant
claimed civil penalties were quasi-contractual in nature and
therefore were available as an offset under the Attachment Law.
(CCP, § 482.010.) According to tenant, the Resolution informed

                                 11
the commercial lease between the parties during the Protections
Period and must be read in conjunction with – and as an
extension of – the commercial lease between the parties in an
attachment proceeding. Tenant also argued that a force majeure
event frustrated the purpose of the commercial lease, and
tenant’s performance was thus excused.
       The trial court granted landlord’s petition and issued a writ
of attachment for $608,173.12. The trial court considered
tenant’s argument for an offset and determined that tenant had
failed to make a prima facie case for its claims as required by
CCP section 483.105. The court also concluded tort damages
could not be used to offset a contract-based attachment claim.
The court issued the writ of attachment after landlord posted a
$10,000 undertaking as required under CCP section 489.220.
       Tenant timely appealed from the order granting the writ of
attachment. (CCP, § 904.1, subd. (a)(5).)
                          DISCUSSION
       On appeal, tenant does not argue that the issuance of an
attachment order against it for the alleged unpaid rent is not
permitted by statute. It instead challenges the trial court’s
rejection of its offset argument. Tenant asserts the amount that
otherwise could be secured by the attachment order should have
been entirely offset by the civil penalties owed by landlord for its
violation of the Resolution, specifically the provisions prohibiting
landlord from charging late fees and interest on the unpaid
rent.10 Tenant also contends landlord’s seizure of tenant’s

10    Tenant asserts landlord violated the Resolution by
charging late fees and interest but not that it ever paid any
interest or late fees to landlord.

                                 12
security deposit for the payment of unpaid rent violated the
Resolution, but fails to cite to any part of the Resolution that
prohibits this action.11
       Landlord asserts tenant’s offset argument fails in multiple
ways, including that the civil penalties alleged against landlord
in tenant’s cross-complaint do not fulfill the requirements of CCP
section 483.010 because: (1) they are not claims for money based
upon an implied or express contract and (2) no statute otherwise
provides for attachment under these circumstances.12 Landlord’s
argument concludes that, because tenant has failed to provide
sufficient evidence that demonstrates its cross-complaint is one
upon which an attachment could be issued under the Attachment
Law, tenant is not entitled to an offset on the attached funds.
1.    The Attachment Law
      “ ‘ “Attachment 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. Construction, Inc.

11   On appeal, tenant appears to have abandoned its
harassment claims as a basis for an offset against landlord.

12     Landlord additionally contends tenant failed to
demonstrate that its claims are of a “fixed or readily
ascertainable amount.” (CCP § 483.010(a).) Without deciding
the issue, we observe that the Resolution sets out a “maximum”
civil penalty of $5,000 per day for each violation. Tenant has
alternately calculated landlord’s total penalties to be: (1) “a
minimum of $1,751,000 and accruing” in its cross-complaint;
(2) “the potential of millions of dollars in penalties” in its
opposition to the motion for attachment order; and $10,990,000
on appeal. [Underlining added.] We need not consider landlord’s
other challenges to tenant’s offset argument.

                                13
v. Titan Electric Corp. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1476
(Kemp).) The procedures and grounds for obtaining orders of
attachment are governed by CCP section 481.010, et seq.
Because California’s Attachment Law is purely statutory, it is
strictly construed. (Bank of America v. Salinas Nissan, Inc.
(1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 260, 270.)
       Before an order of attachment may issue, the court must
find all of the following: (1) the claim upon which the attachment
is based is one upon which an attachment may be issued; (2) the
applicant 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 request for attachment is based; and (4) the amount to
be secured by the attachment is greater than zero. (CCP,
§ 484.090.) To establish the probable validity of its claim, the
applicant must show that it is more likely than not it will obtain
a judgment against the defendant on its claim. (CCP, § 481.190.)
       A prejudgment attachment may secure the “amount of the
defendant’s indebtedness claimed by the plaintiff” as well as
estimated costs and allowable attorney fees. (CCP, § 483.015,
subd. (a).) The amount to be secured by an attachment shall be
reduced or offset by, among other things, the “amount of any
indebtedness of the plaintiff that the defendant has claimed in a
cross-complaint filed in the action if the defendant’s claim is one
upon which an attachment could be issued.” (CCP, § 483.015,
subd. (b)(2); italics added.) An attachment may issue “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 exclusive of costs, interest, and

                                14
attorney’s fees,” except as otherwise provided by statute. (CCP,
§ 483.010.)
       If a cross-complaint forms the basis of an attachment offset,
section 483.015 “does not explicitly require more than a filed
cross-complaint or contract defense in an answer that would itself
support an attachment. However, to sustain reduction in a writ
amount, most courts require that defendant provide enough
evidence about its counterclaims and/or defenses to prove a prima
facie case.’ ” (Lydig Construction, Inc. v. Martinez Steel Corp.
(2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 937, 943–945 (Lydig), quoting Ahart, Cal.
Practice Guide: Enforcing Judgments and Debts, supra, ¶ 4:64,
p. 4-18 (rev. #1, 2010).) “ ‘Courts are generally suspicious of
vague, unsupported counterclaims and defenses.’ ” (Ibid.; see
Pos–A–Traction v. Kelly–Springfield Tire Co. (C.D.Cal. 2000)
112 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1183.)
2.    Standard of Review
       “ ‘On appeal from an attachment order, we review the
record for substantial evidence to support the trial court’s factual
findings. [Citation.] We apply the same evidentiary standard to
an attachment hearing decided on affidavits and declarations as
to a case tried on oral testimony. [Citation.] We will not disturb
a determination upon controverted facts unless no substantial
evidence supports the court’s determination.” (Goldstein v. Barak
Constr. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 845, 853.) But where we are
required to interpret the meaning of a statute, our review is de
novo. (Royals v. Lu, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 344.)
3.    The Cross-complaint is Not Based on Contract
      The civil penalties which tenant argues should offset
landlord’s attachment are not claims for money based upon an

                                15
express or implied contract as required by CCP section 483.010.
The Civil Code addresses which contracts are express or implied:
“The terms of an express contract are stated in words. (Civ.
Code, § 1620.) The existence and terms of an implied contract
are manifested by conduct. (Civ. Code, § 1621.) The distinction
reflects no difference in legal effect but merely in the mode of
manifesting assent.” (Retired Emps. Assn. of Orange Cnty., Inc.
v. Cnty. of Orange (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1171, 1178.) Tenant does not
suggest that the prohibitions and attendant civil penalties
alleged in the cross-complaint are based on the parties’ assent.
Instead, tenant argues they were imposed by law.
        Tenant advances a theory based on an implied-in-law
contract or quasi-contract, arguing that it may waive its tort-
based claims and instead assert claims for money had and
received, unjust enrichment, or restitution. According to tenant,
these quasi-contractual theories of recovery fulfill the “implied”
contract requirement of CCP section 483.010. We are not
persuaded.
        Tenant did not allege causes of action for money had and
received, unjust enrichment, or restitution in its cross-complaint.
Nor could it have done so successfully. In the context of the facts
of the present case, for an attachment, each of these theories of
recovery would have required tenant to have actually paid the
interest or late fees which it claims landlord wrongfully charged.
“ ‘The quasi-contract, or contract “implied in law,” is an obligation
. . . created by the law without regard to the intention of the
parties, and is designed to restore the aggrieved party to his or
her former position by return of the thing or its equivalent in
money.’ ” (Unilab Corp. v. Angeles-IPA (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th
622, 639; see Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Group Inc. (2005)

                                 16
135 Cal.App.4th 21, 56 [“ ‘restitution requires that the defendant
shall give something back to the plaintiff; and it may be supposed
that the defendant cannot do this unless he has received
something of value at the plaintiff’s hands’ ”]; Ghirardo v.
Antonioli (1996) 14 Cal.4th 39, 51 [“Under the law of restitution,
an individual may be required to make restitution if he is
unjustly enriched at the expense of another. A person is enriched
if he receives a benefit at another’s expense”].)
       Tenant does not contend it ever paid interest or late fees to
landlord. It instead contends landlord violated the Resolution by
stating that it was charging late fees and interest. Likewise, the
thrust of landlord’s claim against tenant is that tenant has not
paid rent since 2020, much less late fees or interest on the unpaid
rent. Under these circumstances, an attachment based on
tenant’s claims would not accomplish the restoration of tenant’s
“former position” by return of money it never paid.
       For the same reason, we are not persuaded by tenant’s
broad argument that “business torts” can be pled on a quasi-
contract theory that would entitle it to an offset. In each of the
cases cited by tenant for this proposition, the defendant obtained
money or property that rightfully belonged to the plaintiff. (See
De Leonis v. Etchepare (1898) 120 Cal. 407, 409 [defendant agent
retained rents and other amounts that he collected on plaintiff’s
behalf]; McCall v. Superior Court in and for Imperial Cnty. (1934)
1 Cal.2d 527, 529 [plaintiff buyer sought the return of money he
paid for the purchase of real property]; L.A. Drug Co. v. Superior
Court in and for L.A. Cnty. (1936) 8 Cal.2d 71, 72 [defendants
failed to pay plaintiff for goods they received]; Arcturus Mfg.
Corp. v. Rork (1961) 198 Cal.App.2d 208, 209 [employee received
“secret profits and kickbacks” that belonged to the employer];

                                17
Hill v. Superior Court in and for Alameda Cnty. (1940) 16 Cal.2d
527, 530 [executor embezzled money from estate]; Klein v.
Benaron (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 607, 609 [defendant failed to
repay $50,000 loan]; Philpott v. Superior Court (1934 1 Cal.2d
512, 518 [defendant sold worthless stock to plaintiff].)13 Landlord
never took anything or wrongly detained anything from tenant.
       We also reject tenant’s reliance on Kizer v. Cnty. of San
Mateo (1991) 53 Cal.3d 139, overruled on a different ground by
Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. Superior Ct. (2023) 14 Cal. 5th
758 for the proposition that civil penalties may be applied as an
offset and Pintor v. Ong (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 837, 844 for the
proposition that civil penalties are considered quasi-contractual
for attachment purposes. Neither case is an attachment case,
and both are distinguishable on this ground alone. (Santisas v.
Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 620 [“An appellate decision is not
authority for everything said in the court’s opinion but only ‘for
the points actually involved and actually decided’ ”].)
4.    No Statute Otherwise Provides for Attachment
      Nor is attachment authorized as an aid to enforcement by
the County Resolution or any statute as required under section

13    We summarily reject tenant’s further arguments,
unsupported by legal authority or analysis, that its claims are
quasi-contractual in nature because the parties lacked an
enforceable lease due to the County Resolution and landlord was
somehow unjustly enriched by the writ of attachment itself.
“When a party provides a brief without argument or citation of
authority, we may ‘treat the points as waived, or meritless, and
pass them without further consideration.’ ” (In re Marriage of
Stanton (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 547, 561.)

                                18
483.010, subdivision (a), which limits attachment to contract-
based claims “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute.” The
Law Revision Commission Comments to CCP section 438.010
lists the statutes which expressly authorize civil attachment.
(Law Revision Commission Comments, 1974-1990 Rev. Comment
for section 483.010; Royals v. Lu, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 346,
n. 11 [listing statutes].)
       The Resolution relied upon by tenant is not one of them.
First, the Resolution is a local ordinance, not a state statute.
(See O'Connell v. City of Stockton (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1061, 1067
[discussing the interplay between local ordinance and state law].)
Second, the Resolution does not authorize or even mention
attachment. Tenant has not directed us to any statute that
authorizes an attachment order for civil penalties prescribed by a
local ordinance.
       Finally, we are not persuaded by tenant’s citation to People
ex rel. Younger v. Allstate Leasing Corp. (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d
973, 975. In that case, former Code of Civil Procedure section
537, subdivision 5, expressly authorized a prejudgment
attachment “(i)n an action by the State of California . . . for the
collection of any moneys due upon any obligation or penalty
imposed by law.” The Code of Civil Procedure, in which the
Attachment Law resides, is a collection of state statutes; here we
are dealing with local resolutions and executive orders. (See
Lewis v. Dunne (1901) 134 Cal.291, 293 [“Now, what is the Code
of Civil Procedure? It is merely a name given to a large part of
the general laws of the state”].)

                                19
                           DISPOSITION
      The order granting landlord’s motion for a writ of
attachment is affirmed. Respondent landlord to recover its costs
on appeal.

                                         RUBIN, P. J.
WE CONCUR:

                       BAKER, J.

                       KIM, J.

                                 20