Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Green & McCahill Holdings Limited 

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant JCTLA Investment Corporation 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This case arises from a breach of a loan agreement.  Defendant JCTLA Investment Corporation owns the real property located at 433 South Glen Blvd, Los Angeles, California (the “Property”).  (Kuang Decl. ¶ 5.)  Defendant obtained an unsecured loan of $529,000 from Plaintiff Green & McCahill Holdings Limited, to pay for repairs and improvements on the Property.  (Kuang Decl. ¶ 6.)  The loan is evidenced by a written affidavit dated April 6, 2010, stating that Plaintiff is entitled to the principal amount of $529,000 plus 8% interest to be compounded annually (the “Note”).  (Ex. A to Kuang Decl.)  The Note is signed by Justin Liu as “Caretaker of house for JCTLA.”  (Id.)      

In March 2019, Defendant paid Plaintiff $529,000, for the principal amount of the Note.  However, to date, Defendant has not paid back any interest due on the Note.  (Kuang Decl. ¶ 10.)  As of January 2023, the total amount of interest due is $743,468.48, which continues to accrue at an 8% interest rate.  (Kuang Decl. ¶¶ 12, 13.)  The operative complaint alleges claims for (1) breach of contract and (2) money lent.   

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s application for a writ of attachment.  The attachment is sought pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 483.010, which states “an 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.”   

TIMELINESS OF OPPOSITION 

Any opposition to the writ of attachment was due nine court days before the hearing on March 21, or by March 8, 2023.  Defendant did not file its opposition until March 14, 2023, severely prejudicing Plaintiff’s ability to respond to Defendant’s arguments as Plaintiff’s reply was due on March 13, one day before the opposition was filed.  As a result, the Court exercises its discretion to strike the opposition and the evidentiary objections to the declaration of Liu Tong Kuang.   

LEGAL STANDARD  

“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.) 

“In contested applications, the court must consider the relative merits of the positions of the respective parties and make a determination of¿the probable outcome of the litigation.”  (Hobbs, 73 Cal.App.4th at 80.) 

DISCUSSION 

Probable Validity 

“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.)  Here, Plaintiff has shown it is more likely than not to obtain a judgment against Defendant on its claims for breach of contract and for money lent.   

The elements of a claim for breach of contract are: (1) the existence of a contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach and (4) the resulting damages to the Plaintiff.  (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.)  Here, there is a Note evidencing the Loan; the Note was signed by Jason Liu who Plaintiff has identified is an officer or director of Defendant (Kuang Decl. ¶ 8.); Plaintiff has performed on the Note by providing $529,000 to Defendant; Defendant has breached the contract by failing to repay interest due under the Note, and Plaintiff has suffered damages in the total amount of interest due (or $743,468.48).  (Kuang Decl. ¶¶ 6-12.)  

The elements of common count for money lent are: (1) defendant is indebted to plaintiff in a certain sum; and (2) for money lent, paid or expended to, or for, the defendant. (Moya v. Northrup (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 276, 280.)  “The obligation to pay is rested upon the equitable principle of preventing unjust enrichment as applied to the particular circumstances which have arisen between the parties.” (Moya v. Northrup (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 276, 281.)  Here, the evidence shows that Plaintiff lent $529,000 to Defendant with the understanding that there would be interest owed at the rate of 8% to be compounded annually, and Defendant has failed to repay the interest.  (Kuang Decl. ¶ 10.) 

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 . …” (Code Civ. Proc. § 483.010(b).)  

“It is a well-recognized rule of law in this state that an attachment will lie upon a cause of action for damages for a breach of contract where the damages are readily ascertainable by reference to the contract and the basis of the computation of damages appears to be reasonable and definite. The fact that the damages are unliquidated is not determinative.  But the contract sued on must furnish a standard by which the amount due may be clearly ascertained and there must exist a basis upon which the damages can be determined by proof.’¿” (See CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Super DVD, Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 537, 541.) 

Plaintiff's application is based on claims for breach of contract and for money lent in an amount due that is well in excess of $500. The amount owed is readily ascertainable from the Note, Plaintiff's records and declaration. There is no indication that the claim is secured by real property. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff's money lent claim may properly form the basis for a writ of attachment. 

Purpose and Amount of Attachment 

Code of Civil Procedure section 484.090(a)(3) states that the Court shall issue a right to attach order if “the attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery on the claim upon which the attachment is based . . . [and] the amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero.” 

Plaintiff declares that the attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery on Plaintiff’s claim.  (Appl. ¶ 4.)  The amount to be secured is greater than zero.   Based on the foregoing, the Court determines that Plaintiff has complied with Code of Civil Procedure section 484.020(c). 

Subject Property 

 

Code of Civil Procedure section 487.010(a) provides that “[w]here the defendant is a corporation, all corporate property for which a method of levy is provided” is subject to attachment.   Defendant is a corporation.  Thus, a request for attachment of all of Defendant’s property is appropriate. 

 

Exemptions 

 

There is no claimed exemption.  Also, generally, corporate defendants may not claim exemptions.  (Onway Fashion v. Sourceasy, Inc., 2017 Cal. Super. LEXIS 89146 at *6; Thuy Nguyen v. La Girl Jewelry, 2017 Cal. Super. LEXIS 79744 at *7.) 

 

Reduction of Amount to be Secured 

 

Code of Civil Procedure section 483.015(b) provides that the amount to be secured by the attachment shall be reduced by, inter alia: 

 

(2) The amount of any indebtedness of the plaintiff that the defendant has claimed in a cross-complaint filed in the action if the defendant’s claim is one upon which an attachment could be issued. 

 

(3) The amount of any claim of the defendant asserted as a defense in the answer pursuant to Section 431.70 if the defendant’s claim is one upon which an attachment could be issued had an action been brought on the claim when it was not barred by the statute of limitations. 

 

“[T]o sustain reduction in a writ amount, most courts require that the defendant provide enough evidence about its counterclaims and/or defenses to prove a prima facie case [for attachment against Plaintiff].”  (Ahart, California Practice Guide: Enforcing Judgments and Debts, ¶ 4:64 (1998 rev.).) 

There is no claim that the amount of attachment should be reduced by an attachable cross-claim or affirmative defense.  

 

Undertaking  

 

Code of Civil Procedure section 489.210 requires the plaintiff to file an undertaking before issuance of a writ of attachment.  Code of Civil Procedure section 489.220 provides, with exceptions, for an undertaking in the amount of $10,000.  Neither party contends that another amount of undertaking should be required.  

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will GRANT the application for writ of attachment, and Plaintiff is required to post an undertaking of $10,000.   

DATED:  March 22, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court