Judge Curtis A. Kin, Case Number: 25STCV10295, Date: 2025-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Chapman Court LLC moves for a right to attach order against defendants CNP Chapman Corp. aka CNP Chapman Inc. and Donghun Yoo aka Dong Hun Yoo in the amount of $287,234.11.

On August 29, 2019, plaintiff Chapman Court LLC and defendant CNP Chapman Corp. aka CNP Chapman Inc. (“CNP”) entered into a written commercial lease agreement in connection with the Ground Floor and Mezzanine Floor of the premises located at 3513 West 6^th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90020. (Neman Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 1.) The lease was for a period of ten years, and it was set to commence on January 1, 2020. (Ibid.) CNP agreed to pay plaintiff a base rent on the first of the month for each floor, and this rent amount was set to increase 3% each year. (Id., Ex. 1 at ¶ 4.) In addition to the payment of rent, CNP agreed to pay Common Area Maintenance (“CAM”) charges each month. (Id. ¶ 7.) Also on August 29, 2019, defendant Donghun Yoo aka Dong Hun Yoo (“Yoo”) executed a “Guaranty of Lease” in connection with the underlying lease agreement, agreeing to personally guaranty CNP’s obligations. (Id. ¶ 9; Ex. 2..)

On October 1, 2020, CNP breached the terms of the lease by failing to timely make payment of the base rent owed and CAM charges, and CNP thereafter continued to fail to pay the monthly rent that was due. (Id. ¶ 10.) Yoo failed to comply with his obligations under the guaranty agreement. (Ibid.) By May 30, 2023, the parties entered into an Amendment to Lease (the “Amendment”), wherein plaintiff agreed to defer collection efforts to enforce such debts in return for additional payment from defendants through September 1, 2024. (Id. ¶ 10, Ex. 3.) Furthermore, because defendants had only paid $75,000 of the $158,360 security deposit, defendants agreed through the Amendment to pay the remaining balance of $83,360. (Id. 12, Ex. 1 at ¶ 8 & Ex. 3 at ¶ 1.) Following the execution of the Amendment, defendants have continued to breach the lease and Amendment by failing to make necessary payments for the rent and CAM charges. (Id. at ¶ 12.) As of April 1, 2024, and after deducting the existing security deposit of $75,000, defendants owe an unpaid balance of $277,234.11. (Id. ¶ 13, Ex. 4.) While plaintiff has demanded payment for the aforementioned amount, defendants have failed to pay any part of this balance. (Id. ¶ 14.)

“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.

(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.)

“[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 defendants is based on the lease, the guaranty agreement, and Amendment that defendants had previously signed. (Neman Decl. ¶¶ 6, 9-10 & Exs. 1-3.) In opposition, defendants argue that the claimed amount is not fixed or readily ascertainable because there are inconsistencies within plaintiff’s internal accounting as amount shown on the accounting ledger does not match with the amount stated in the Amendment. (Opp. at 3.) This argument is unpersuasive. As plaintiff points out in Reply, defendants owed $297,935.68 as of May 1, 2023. (Reply at 2-3; Neman Decl., Ex. 4.) In taking into account the outstanding security deposit of $83,360, defendants would owe $381,295.68.[1] (Reply at 3.) In comparing this amount with the amount stated in the Amendment, there is only a difference of $270, and, as plaintiff explains, this difference had resulted because the parties originally believed that the unpaid portion of the security deposit was $83,630, not $83,360. (Reply, Neman Suppl. Decl. ¶ 4.) Therefore, because plaintiff does not seek recovery of the unpaid portion of the security deposit, the amount that plaintiff seeks to attach is supported by the evidence submitted.

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

“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.)

The evidence presented by plaintiff establishs that defendants owe $277,234.11. (Neman Decl., Ex. 4.) Notably, defendants have not made any argument to suggest that plaintiff has not performed its terms under the lease agreement or that they did not breach their respective agreements.

Plaintiff has thus demonstrated the probable validity of its breach of contract claim against defendants.

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.” (Apps. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff also demonstrates that the amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero. (Apps. ¶ 8; see also Neman Decl. ¶ 15.)

With respect to estimated attorney fees and costs, plaintiff seeks to attach $5,000 in fees and $5,000 in costs against defendant. (See Apps. ¶ 8.) Defendants do not challenge these amounts, and the Court finds them to be reasonable.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that plaintiff is entitled to attachment against defendants in the total requested amount of $287,234.11.

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. (Apps. ¶ 5.)

CCP § 487.010(a) states that, where the defendant is a corporation, all corporate property for which a method of levy is provided in CCP § 488.300 et seq. is subject to attachment. As to CNP, a corporation, plaintiff moves to attach any property of this defendant.

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).) Plaintiff seeks to attach against Yoo all property permissible under CCP § 487.010(c). The property which plaintiff seeks to attach against Yoo are permissible under CCP § 487.010(c)(1)-(11).

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. Plaintiff’s moving parties are silent as to this requirement. Under the circumstances, the Court finds that an undertaking of $10,000 is appropriate for each defendant.

The application against defendant CNP Chapman LLC is GRANTED in the amount of $287,234.11. The application against defendant Donghun Yoo is GRANTED in the amount of $287,234.11. Before any writ will issue, plaintiff Chapman Court LLC shall post an undertaking in the amount of $10,000 with respect to each defendant. The Court will sign the Proposed Right to Attach Orders, electronically received April 28, 2025, in accordance with the above.

[1] Per the Amendment, the payment of the outstanding security deposit payment would have been waived if defendants had made all necessary payments under the lease and Amendment by September 1, 2024. (Neman Decl., Ex. 3 at ¶ 1.)