Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 25STCV06766, Date: 2025-06-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV06766    Hearing Date: June 5, 2025    Dept: 86

Plaintiff Eleven Twelve Holdings LLC moves for a right to attach order against defendant Donghao Li in the amount of $510,162.05.  The application is GRANTED IN PART.

I.       Factual Background

            On December 8, 2019, defendant Donghao Li executed a written lease, which was subject to a personal Guaranty of Lease for the benefit of KT2017 Partners LLC (“KT2017 Partners LLC”), on behalf of Tripalink Property Management Inc. (“Tripalink”) and himself for the payment of rent and other obligations for a 4-unit residential property located at 112, 112-1/2, 114 and 114-1/2 N. Oxford Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90004 (the “Property”). (Bahk Decl. ¶ 4 & Exs. A-B.) Under the lease, monthly payments of $19,125 were due at the first of each month beginning on July 1, 2021, and these payments would annually increase by 3%. (Bahk Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. A.) The monthly rent is currently $20,289.71. (Bahk Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. A.) Based on the guaranty agreement, defendant agreed to make any payment on Tripalink’s behalf in instances of default. (Bahk Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. B.)

On June 14, 2022, KT2017 Partners LLC assigned its rights associated with the Property to plaintiff Eleven Twelve Holdings LLC, and, as a result, Tripalink made monthly rent payments directly to plaintiff. Tripalink breached the lease by failing to make full rent payments for the months of August 2024, January 2025, February 2025, March 2025, and April 2025, amounting to $76,504.39. (Bahk Decl. ¶ 7.) Similarly, defendant breached the guaranty agreement by failing to ensure that these payments were made. (Bahk Decl. ¶ 7.) Pursuant to the late fee provision of the lease, the signatory parties agreed that 5% would be added to the amount due when rent is not received on or before the third day after the first business day of each month. (Bahk Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex. A at ¶ 3.) Plaintiff has demanded payment from defendant at least once since the breach in August 2024. (Bahk Decl. ¶ 12.)

Plaintiff claims that defendant has refused to pay future rents until a resolution of this lawsuit is reached. (Bahk Decl. ¶ 9.) With this understanding, plaintiff asserts that it will be damaged in the amount of $430,144.48. (Bahk Decl. ¶ 14.)

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 application for a writ of attachment must be supported “by an affidavit showing that the plaintiff on the facts presented would be entitled to a judgment on the claim upon which the attachment is based.” (CCP § 484.030.)

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 claims that the application should be denied because plaintiff has not identified any risk of irreparable harm pursuant to CCP § 486.010(b). (Opp. at 4:5-10.) This argument has no bearing on the Court’s analysis here, because the cited statute only applies to ex parte applications for a writ of attachment.

Plaintiff also claims that was not timely served with the opposition because the opposition was sent by regular mail, resulting in service on June 2, 2025, and the parties had not consented to electronic service. (Reply at 5.) Given that plaintiff was able to file a substantive Reply, it has not been prejudiced by any perceived error in service. In any event, plaintiff’s claim that it did not consent to electronic service is without merit. Plaintiff served the instant application through electronic means, and, as a result, it manifested affirmative consent to be served electronically. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(b)(1)(B).) Because CCP § 1005(b) permits service by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or facsimile transmission, electronic service is permitted. (CCP § 1010.5(3)(A).)

Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to the declaration of Neema Hodjat are OVERRULED.

1.            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).)  “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).) 

            Plaintiff’s claim against defendant is based on the guaranty that defendant had previously signed in connection with the lease agreement. (Bahk Decl. ¶ 4 & Exs. A-B.) It is undisputed that defendant owes $76,504.39, plus a late fee of 5% for rent payments that are currently outstanding. (Hodjat Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff further states that, by the time of this hearing, the unpaid rent would be $117,083.81 and late fees will be $5,854.22. (Bahk Decl. ¶ 17.) Additionally, if plaintiff is successful in asserting its anticipatory breach theory, then the entirety of the amounts claimed are readily ascertainable. (See Bahk Decl. ¶ 14.)  

Accordingly, plaintiff demonstrates a valid basis for attachment pursuant to the guaranty agreement.

2.            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.)

As stated above, it is undisputed that defendant owes $76,504.39, plus a late fee of 5%. Defendant has made no argument to suggest that plaintiff has not performed its terms under the lease agreement or that defendant has resumed meeting his obligations under the guaranty agreement. The Court also finds that plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated nonpayment of rent in the total amount of $117,083.81 with late fees of $5,854.22, as of the date of the hearing on plaintiff’s application.  (See Bahk Decl. ¶ 10.)

However, plaintiff has not submitted sufficient evidence that defendant has refused future payment and has demonstrated a pattern and practice of nonpayment over the entire life of the agreement. (Bahk Decl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff effectively concedes that partial payments were made for August 2024 and February 2025 and that full payments were made from September 2024 through December 2024. (Bahk Decl. ¶ 7.)  The speculation by plaintiff’s member Henry Bahk that he believes defendant will continue to not pay rents as they become due is insufficient to establish plaintiff’s theory of anticipatory breach and damages for the entire life of the agreement.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff has demonstrated the probable validity of its breach of contract claim against defendant but not its claim of anticipatory breach.

3.            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 Bahk Decl. ¶ 17.)  

            With respect to the amounts to be attached, the Court finds that it is appropriate to limit the amount to the breaches that have actually occurred because plaintiff has not successfully established the probable validity of its anticipatory breach claim. Additionally, the Court notes that defendant does not dispute the asserted calculations for interest. (Bahk Decl. ¶ 20.) With respect to estimated attorney fees and costs, plaintiff seeks to attach $40,000 in fees and $2,500 in costs against defendant. (See App. ¶ 8.) For what is essentially a straightforward contract-based case, these amounts are unreasonable. The Court will reduce asserted fees by 75%..

            Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that plaintiff is entitled to attachment against defendant in the amount of $142,438.75 ($117,083.81 [breach] + 12,854.94 [interest] + $2,500 [costs] + $10,000 [fees]).  

4.            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.)

5.            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 property which plaintiff seeks to attach are permissible under CCP § 487.010(c)(7).

6.            Exemptions

No claim of exemption was filed.

7.            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 argues that the undertaking should equal the value of the money sought to be attached. (Opp. at 4.) However, defendant fails to articulate why a $10,000 bond would be insufficient and does not present evidence to show the damages that he would encounter from a wrongful attachment. Thus, the Court will order an undertaking in the amount of $10,000.

IV.     Conclusion

The application against defendant Donghao Li GRANTED IN PART in the amount of $142,438.75. Before any writ will issue, plaintiff Eleven Twelve Holdings Inc. shall post an undertaking in the amount of $10,000.  Plaintiff is further instructed to lodge a Proposed Right to Attach Order on the appropriate Judicial Council form for the Court’s signature.