Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 25STCV01107, Date: 2025-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV01107    Hearing Date: June 12, 2025    Dept: 86

Plaintiff JZ Law Group, P.C. moves for a right to attach order against defendant Sinai Abrahami in the amount of $21,477.57.

I.       Factual Background

            In May 2023, plaintiff JZ Law Group, P.C. entered into a written Attorney-Client Fee Agreement with defendant Sinai Abrahami pursuant to which plaintiff agreed to provide legal services in connection with an unlawful detainer action concerning the real property located at 1131 S, Swall Drive, Beverly Hills, California. (Zadeh Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex. 1.) Thereafter, plaintiff continued to provide legal services for defendant in connection with the following matters: (1) Mahargan v. Ben-Schmuel (LASC Case Nos. 23SMUD01436 and 23SMUD03197); (2) Itria Ventures LLC v. Grey Violet Italy, Inc., et al. (LASC Case No. 23STCV08211), and (3) Abrahami v. Nikolopoulos (LASC Case No. 24SMUD00050). (Zadeh Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. 2.) The last of these actions concerned property located at 137 S. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90212.

While providing legal services to defendant, plaintiff issued several invoices to defendant for services rendered, which defendant paid in part but currently owes $21,477.57 in unpaid legal fees. (Zadeh Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. 3.) Plaintiff unsuccessfully demanded payment from defendant. (Zadeh Decl. ¶ 7; Halter Decl., Ex. 1.) Due to defendant’s failure to pay, plaintiff moved to be relieved as counsel in the above referenced matters in July 2024. (Zadeh Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. 4.) 

II.      Applicable Law

            “Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, the plaintiff may apply pursuant to this article for a right to attach order and a writ of attachment by filing an application for the order and writ with the court in which the action is brought.” (CCP § 484.010.)

The application shall be executed under oath and must include: (1) a statement showing that the attachment is sought to secure the recovery on a claim upon which an attachment may be issued; (2) a statement of the amount to be secured by the attachment; (3) a statement that the attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery on the claim upon which the attachment is based; (4) a statement that the applicant has no information or belief that the claim is discharged or that the prosecution of the action is stayed in a proceeding under the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.); and (5) a description of the property to be attached under the writ of attachment and a statement that the plaintiff is informed and believes that such property is subject to attachment. (CCP § 484.020.)

            The Court shall consider the showing made by the parties, as well as the pleadings and other papers in the record. (CCP § 484.090(a), (d).) The Court shall issue a right to attach order if it finds all of 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(a)(1-4).) “The Attachment Law statutes are subject to strict construction….” (Epstein v. Abrams (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1168.)

III.     Analysis

            As a preliminary matter, defendant raises equitable arguments that have no application here. First, defendant claims that the application should be denied because plaintiff has not identified any risk of irreparable harm. (Opp. at 4:27-28.) This argument is unavailing because a showing of irreparable harm under CCP § 485.010(b) only applies to seeking a writ of attachment on an ex parte basis. Second, defendant relies on CCP § 484.340(c) for the proposition that the property that plaintiff seeks to attach has a value that exceeds the amount to be secured by the attachment. (Opp. at 4:2-12.) That statute has no application here because it applies to subsequent writs of attachment; the instant application is for an initial writ of attachment.

A.           Basis of Attachment

“[A]n 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.”  (CCP § 483.010(a).)

            Plaintiff’s claim against defendant stems from the breach of their agreement for defendant to pay for legal services rendered by plaintiff, as reflected in the written Attorney-Client Fee Agreement, amounting to an outstanding balance of $21,477.57. (Zadeh Decl. ¶¶ 5-6 & Ex. 3.) As pointed out by defendant, the Attorney-Client Fee Agreement provided by plaintiff is unsigned (Opp. at 5:14-16), but that is of no moment, as the basis for attachment is the implied contract between plaintiff and defendant for legal services, which is evidenced by the unsigned agreement, as well as invoices for services for which defendant remitted partial payment. (Zadeh Decl.¶¶ 4-6 & Exs. 1, 3.)

Accordingly, plaintiff demonstrates a valid basis for attachment pursuant to the existence of an implied contract between the parties.

B.           Probable Validity of Plaintiff’s Claims

“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.” (CCP § 481.190.) “If the defendant opposes the application, ‘the court must then consider the relative merits of the positions of the respective parties and make a determination of the probable outcome of the litigation.’ [Citations.]” (Pech v. Morgan (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 841, 855.)

Plaintiff presents evidence that defendant owes plaintiff$21,477.57 in unpaid legal fees per there is agreement.  (See Zadeh Decl.¶ 6 & Ex. 3.)  There is no genuine dispute that defendant is obligated to pay the amounts due pursuant to the invoices presented by plaintiff. Indeed, defendant has not made any argument to suggest that plaintiff failed to perform in accordance with their agreement or that defendant has not failed to pay the invoices for services provided.

            Instead, defendant argues that the claimed damages are $19,229.36, not $21,477.57, based on the invoices submitted. (Opp. at 5:18-20.) A simple calculation of the invoices establishes that the unpaid fees, in fact, amount to $21,477.57. (Zadeh Decl. Ex. 3 ($8,434.88 + $1,526.60 + $2,248.21 + $9,267.88 = $21,477.57.)

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff demonstrates the probable validity of its breach of contract claim against defendant.

C.           Purpose and Amount of Attachment

The other required findings under CCP § 484.090 are that the “attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery on the claim upon which the attachment is based” and that the “amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero.” (CCP § 484.090(a)(3), (a)(4).)

Plaintiff declares that “[a]ttachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery on a claim upon which the attachment is based.” (App. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff also demonstrates that the amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero. (App. ¶ 8; see also Zadeh Decl. ¶ 12.)  These averments are undisputed.  

            Defendant argues that the amount sought to be secured should be offset by his cross-claim for malpractice. (Opp. at 4:19-24.) A defendant may claim offset for the amount sought by attachment on the ground that his cross-complaint or answer contains a claim for amounts arising from a claim upon which an attachment could be issued.  (CCP § 483.015(b)(2).)  Here, defendant provides no authority for the proposition that a claim for malpractice is one upon which attachment may be based and, in any event, fails to demonstrate the probability of such claim. (See Lydig Construction, Inc. v. Martinez Steel, (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 937.) Defendant fails to submit any evidence to suggest that he would prevail on his of malpractice. Thus, defendant has not sufficiently established that an offset should apply here.

            Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that plaintiff is entitled to attachment against defendant in the requested amount of $21,477.57.

D.           Bankruptcy

CCP § 484.020(d) requires a “statement that the applicant has no information or belief that the claim is discharged in a proceeding under Title 11 of the United States Code (Bankruptcy) or that the prosecution of the action is stayed in a proceeding under Title 11 of the United States Code (Bankruptcy).” Plaintiff provides this statement. (App. ¶ 5.)

E.           Property Subject to Attachment

CCP § 487.010(c) states that, where the defendant is a natural person, only the specific properties are subject to attachment. (CCP § 487.010(c)(1)-(11).) The rental property located at 137 Rexford Dr., Beverly Hills, CA 90212, which plaintiff seeks to attach, is permissible under CCP § 487.010(c)(1) and (7).

F.           Exemptions

No claim of exemption was filed.

G.           Undertaking

CCP § 489.210 requires the plaintiff to file an undertaking before issuance of a writ of attachment. CCP § 489.220 provides, with exceptions, for an undertaking in the amount of $10,000. Defendant fails to articulate why a $10,000 bond would be insufficient and does not present evidence of how he would be damaged from a wrongful attachment. Thus, the Court will order an undertaking in the amount of $10,000.

IV.     Conclusion

The application against defendant Sinai Abrahami is GRANTED in the amount of $21,477.57. Before any writ will issue, plaintiff JZ Law Group, P.C. shall post an undertaking in the amount of $10,000.  Plaintiff shall lodge a Proposed Right to Attach Order on Judicial Council form AT-120 for the Court to sign.