Judge Curtis A. Kin, Case Number: 24STCV25337, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 24STCV25337, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV25337 Hearing Date: March 27, 2025 Dept: 86

APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER

BY PLAINTIFF FIRST LEGAL DEPOSITION SERVICES, LLC

Date: 3/27/25 (1:30 PM)

Case: First Legal Network, LLC, et al. v. Knight Law Group, LLP (24STCV25337)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff First Legal Deposition Services, LLC’s application for right to attach order with respect to defendant Knight Law Group LLC 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; and

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

On or about February 9, 2016, Plaintiff and Defendant Knight Law Group, LLC entered into a partly written/partly oral contract. (Ely Decl. ¶ 4.) Under this agreement, Defendant would contact Plaintiff to order deposition services, including arranging remote depositions, producing transcripts, reproducing deposition exhibits, and delivering transcripts and exhibits (the “Services”). (Ely Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff would perform the Services and issue an invoice reflecting the services performed and the amount due. (Ely Decl. ¶ 4.) Defendant ceased making payments on invoices when due. (Ely Decl. ¶ 5 & Exs. 1, 2.)

On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of contract and other related claims arising from the alleged non-payment of invoices pursuant to the contract. (Almaraz Decl. ¶ 3; Pl. Ex. 3.) As of the 2/13/25 date of filing the instant application for attachment, the total outstanding balance owed by Defendant to Plaintiff was $279,263.03, exclusive of interest and costs. (Ely Dec. ¶¶ 5-6 ; Pl. Exs. 1, 2.) With the inclusion of interest and costs, Plaintiff initially sought attachment in the amount of $300,516.81. (Mem. at 5; Almaraz Decl. ¶ 4, 5.) Plaintiff now seeks attachment of $281,775.41, which accounts for defendant’s contention that it paid $18,619.22 to plaintiff on 3/3/25. (Koczara Reply Decl. ¶ 5.)

While inappropriately referring to the instant application as “inane” (Opp. at 2; WasteXperts, Inc. v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 652, 666-67 [“Ad hominem attacks and other invective detract from counsel’s argument, signal inappropriate personal embroilment in the dispute, and indicate an inability to engage in the reasoned analysis the courts need and counsel’s clients deserve”]), defendants principally oppose attachment on the grounds that the amount to be attached is not readily ascertainable and that plaintiff has not demonstrated the probable validity of its claim. A claim has probable validity where the plaintiff demonstrates “it is more likely than not that plaintiff will obtain judgment against the defendant on that claim.” (CCP § 481.190; Lorber Industries v. Turbulence, Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 532, 535.)

Here, defendant’s contentions both fail for the same reason. By reference to the payment invoices, the amount due and owing from defendant to plaintiff may be readily ascertained. (See Ely Decl. ¶¶ 5-6; Pl. Exs. 5-6.) Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, an Excel spreadsheet prepared by plaintiff’s Collections Manager Juliette Ely, details the amounts owed, with Entries 300-546 specifically pertaining to Plaintiff. (Ely Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5; Pl. Ex. 1.) The spreadsheet’s Column G, titled “Doc no,” lists the corresponding invoice numbers for the deposition services rendered. (Ely Dec. ¶ 5; Pl. Ex. 1.) Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2 consists of the past-due invoices referenced in Column G of Exhibit 1. (Ely Dec. ¶¶ 5-6; Pl. Ex. 2.) Indeed, down to the penny, plaintiff demonstrates that defendant owes $279,263.03 in unpaid invoices, minus a recent payment for $18,619.22. (Ely Decl. ¶ 5; Koczara Reply Decl. ¶ 5.) In contrast to this evidentiary showing, defendant merely offers the declaration of its counsel, expressing in conclusory fashion that “Defendant is concerned with the accuracy of the invoices issued by Plaintiff” and “that Defendant believes there could be excess billing and other egregious errors that could have inflated the amounts specified in the invoices and spreadsheets Plaintiff provided.” (Simon Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendant, however, provides no evidence to support such concern and belief. On this record, the Court finds plaintiff has established the probable validity of its claims.

Lastly, the Court does not find, as defendant argues, that plaintiff has brought this application “in Bad Faith and For an Improper Purpose.” (Opp. at 7.) To begin with, plaintiff denies it. (Almaraz Decl. ¶ 7.) More to the point, plaintiff is well within its rights to seek and obtain attachment upon making the proper showing required by statute (CCP § 484.090), which the Court finds to be the case here. This is so even if a party were to do so after settlement attempts have failed—to the extent it is even appropriate for a party to raise settlement negotiations (see Simon Decl. ¶¶ 11-13& Exs. B, C).

Based on the foregoing, the application will be granted in the amount of $281,775.41. (Koczara Reply Decl. ¶ 5.) The Court will sign the Proposed Order, electronically received 2/13/25, with the modification to the amount of attachment in paragraph 3(a). Plaintiff First Legal Deposition Services, LLC must post an undertaking of $10,000 before any writ of attachment shall issue.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER

BY PLAINTIFF FIRST LEGAL NETWORK, LLC

Date: 3/27/25 (1:30 PM)

Case: First Legal Network, LLC, et al. v. Knight Law Group, LLP (24STCV25337)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff First Legal Network, LLC’s application for right to attach order with respect to defendant Knight Law Group LLC 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; and

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

On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of contract and other related claims arising from the alleged non-payment of invoices pursuant to the contract. (Koczara Decl. ¶ 3; Pl. Ex. 3.) As of the 2/13/25 date of filing the instant application for attachment, the total outstanding balance owed by Defendant to Plaintiff was $40,087.32, exclusive of interest. (Ely Decl. ¶ 5-6; Pl. Exs. 1, 2.) With the inclusion of interest, Plaintiff initially sought attachment in the amount of $42,041.76. (Mem. at 5; Almaraz Decl. ¶ 4, 5.) Plaintiff now seeks attachment of $24,399.12, which accounts for defendant’s contention that it paid $17,960.88 to plaintiff on 3/3/25. (Koczara Reply Decl. ¶ 5.)

Here, defendant’s contentions both fail for the same reason. By reference to the payment invoices, the amount due and owing from defendant to plaintiff may be readily ascertained. (See Ely Decl. ¶¶ 5-6; Pl. Exs. 5-6.) Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, an Excel spreadsheet prepared by plaintiff’s Collections Manager Juliette Ely, details the amounts owed, with Entries 10-298 specifically pertaining to Plaintiff. (Ely Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5; Pl. Ex. 1.) Column A of the spreadsheet states “Court & Process” to reflect the general nature of the services provided. Column G, labeled “Doc no,” identifies the invoice numbers corresponding to the Services rendered. (Ely Dec. ¶ 5; Pl. Ex. 1.) Exhibit 2 consists of the past-due invoices referenced in Column G of Exhibit 1. (Ely Dec. ¶¶ 5-6; Pl. Ex. 2.) Indeed, down to the penny, plaintiff demonstrates that defendant owes $40,087.32 in unpaid invoices, minus a recent payment for $17,960.88. (Ely Decl. ¶ 5; Koczara Reply Decl. ¶ 5.) In contrast to this evidentiary showing, defendant merely offers the declaration of its counsel, expressing in conclusory fashion that “Defendant is concerned with the accuracy of the invoices issued by Plaintiff” and “that Defendant believes there could be excess billing and other egregious errors that could have inflated the amounts specified in the invoices and spreadsheets Plaintiff provided.” (Simon Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendant, however, provides no evidence to support such concern and belief. On this record, the Court finds plaintiff has established the probable validity of its claims.

Lastly, the Court does not find, as defendant argues, that plaintiff has brought this application “in Bad Faith and For an Improper Purpose.” (Opp. at 7.) To begin with, plaintiff denies it. (Koczara Decl. ¶ 6.) More to the point, plaintiff is well within its rights to seek and obtain attachment upon making the proper showing required by statute (CCP § 484.090), which the Court finds to be the case here. This is so even if such party were to do so after settlement attempts have failed—to the extent it is even appropriate for the other party to raise settlement negotiations (see Simon Decl. ¶¶ 11-13 & Exs. B, C).

Based on the foregoing, the application will be granted in the amount of $24,399.12. (Koczara Reply Decl. ¶ 5.) The Court will sign the Proposed Order, electronically received 2/18/25, with the modification to the amount of attachment in paragraph 3(a). Plaintiff First Legal Network, LLC must post an undertaking of $10,000 before any writ of attachment shall issue.