Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 23STCV09455, Date: 2025-03-18 Tentative Ruling

24STCP02299  Luchia Tsegaberhan
The Petition will be granted.  A copy of the signed decree will be available in Room 112 of the clerk’s office seven days after the date of the hearing.

Case Number: 23STCV09455    Hearing Date: March 18, 2025    Dept: 86

APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER

Date:               3/18/25 (1:30 PM)

Case:               San Marcos Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Santa Maria Pharmacy, Inc., et al. (23STCV 09455)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs San Marcos Pharmacy, Inc. and Guadalupe Pharmacy, Inc.’s UNOPPPOSED application for right to attach order with respect to defendant Marcos Soliman is GRANTED.

 Pursuant to CCP §484.090, the Court finds:

 1)      the claim is one upon which attachment may be issued;

2)      plaintiff has established the probable validity of the claim;

3)      attachment is not sought for any purpose other than recovery on the claim;

4)      the amount to be attached is greater than zero.

The Court notes that, on a nearly identical showing by plaintiffs previously, on 1/10/24, the Court (Hon. Mitch Beckloff) issued a right to attach order for plaintiffs against defendant Marcos Soliman in the amount of $1,482,330.00, based on the first and fourth causes of action in the Complaint, arising from the $1.45 million promissory note between plaintiffs and defendant Santa Maria Pharmacy, Inc.  (See 1/10/24 Order Granting Applications for Writs of Attachment; compare 2/7/25 Application for Right to Attach Order [instance application] with 8/7/23 Application for Right to Attach Order [prior application].)

The only apparent difference between the evidence submitted with the current and prior applications is that the current application includes additional evidence obtained in discovery further indicating the unity of interest between Santa Maria Pharmacy, Inc. and Marcos Soliman, including admissions that money from the promissory note was deposited into Soliman’s personal account and that Soliman made purchases for the business from that personal account. (2/7/25 Galliver Decl. ¶ 9 & Ex. 8.)

In addition, per Civil Code § 3287(a), the current application seeks to attach an amount for pre-judgment interest from the Promissory Note date of 11/9/18 up to the 3/18/25 hearing date, which is 2,321 days, for a total of $922,041 [(2,321 days/365) x ($1,450,000 x .10)].  (Pl. Mem. at 11.)  (Plaintiffs erroneously calculate the period as 2,382 days.)  The current application also seeks to attach an amount for attorney’s fees pursuant to the terms of the Promissory Note, which states “‘Lender’ is also entitled for full compensation of legal fees” in the event Lender must sue the Borrower for money loaned. (Michale Soliman Decl. Ex. 1 [Promissory Note at 2].)  Specifically, plaintiffs seek attorneys’ fees calculated in accordance with LASC Rule 3.214(a) for a total of $51,195.48. (See Pl. Mem. at 11.)  Lastly, the current application seeks to attach $60 in costs for a filing fee. (See Pl. Mem. at 12.)

Based on the foregoing, as well as the reasons previously stated by Judge Beckloff in his 1/10/24 Order granting plaintiffs’ initial application for a writ of  attachment based on the $1.45 million promissory note, the instant application is granted in the amount of $2,423,296.48 ($1,450,000 unpaid promissory note + $922,041 pre-judgment interest + $51,195.48 attorney’s fees + $60 costs).  A Writ shall issue upon the posting of bond in the amount of $10,000. (CCP § 489.220.)

The Court will sign the Proposed Order, electronically received 2/7/25, with $2,423,296.48 as the amount of attachment.  The Court will strike the reference in paragraph 3.c(2) to real properties located a 958 Calle Serra, San Dimas, CA 91773 and 1400 E. Ocean Blvd., #1402, Long Beach CA 90802, as plaintiffs make no showing that those specified properties are real properties owned by defendant Soliman that plaintiffs may attach.