Judge Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case Number: 25SMCV01042, Date: 2025-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case: 25SMCV01042, Date: 2025-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205

MASHIAN LAW GROUP,

Plaintiff,

MICHAEL WANG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 25SMCV01042

Hearing Date: May 2, 2025

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATIONs for

Right to attach orders and

WRITs OF ATTACHMENT against

defendants michael wang and a-

team logistics group, inc.

This case arises from an attorney fee dispute. Plaintiff Mashian Law Group is a law firm. Defendant Real A-Team Logistics Corp. is a California corporation, and Defendant Michael Wang is its CEO, CFO and Secretary.

Defendants retained Plaintiff to represent Defendants in connection with a lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court (the “Lawsuit”). The parties entered into a fee agreement. Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff at the hourly rates stated in the fee agreement and for all costs and expenses incurred by Plaintiff. Plaintiff claims Defendants failed to pay its legal fees and costs, of $48,086.13 plus accrued interest of $847.55.

In addition, the parties’ fee agreement provides at Paragraph 6: “In any action or proceeding to enforce [Defendants’] obligation to pay any fees or costs under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs from the non-prevailing party.”

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s applications for right to attach orders and for writs of attachment. Plaintiff argues its claim for breach of contract is one upon which an attachment may issue, exceeds $500, is not secured by real property, is likely to prevail, and is not exempt from attachment. In addition to the outstanding fees and costs of $48,933, Plaintiff also seeks to attach costs associated with the filing of the instant applications, including $3,548,61 in already incurred fees and costs plus $2,225 in anticipated fees and costs. There was no opposition filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling. Default has been entered against both Defendants.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Plaintiff seeks judicial notice of a Statement of Information for A-Team Logistics Group, Inc., a California corporation, filed with the Office of the California Secretary of State on January 24, 2025, File No. BA20250169272. The Court grants the request pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code §§ 452(h) and 453. The Court takes judicial notice of the Statements of Information to the extent that the Statements of Information were filed with the California Secretary of State and not for the truth of the matters asserted therein.

“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.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 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. section 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.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 484.020.)¿¿

“The application [for a writ of attachment] shall 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.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 484.030.)¿¿¿

The Court shall issue a right to attach order if the Court 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.¿

“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.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 481.190.) In determining the probable validity of a claim where the defendant makes an appearance, 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.”¿ (See Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1120.)¿ This procedure is “similar to a bench trial.”¿ (Hobbs v. Weiss (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 76, 81.)

At the times prescribed by Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b), the defendant must be served with summons and complaint, notice of application and hearing, and the application and supporting evidence.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 484.040.)¿¿¿

The amount to be secured by the attachment is the sum of (1) the amount of the defendant’s indebtedness claimed by the plaintiff, and (2) any additional amount included by the court for estimate of costs and any allowable attorneys' fees under Code Civ. Proc. § 482.110. (Code Civ. Proc., § 483.015(a); Goldstein v. Barak Construction (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 845, 852.)

Where the defendant is a natural person, the description of the property must be reasonably adequate to permit the defendant to identify the specific property sought to be attached. (Code Civ. Proc., § 484.020(e).) Although the property must be specifically described for individual defendants, the plaintiff may target for attachment everything the individual defendant owns. (Bank of America, 207 Cal.App.3d at 268.) Further, an attachment may issue against an individual who guarantees corporate obligations or business debts if “the guarantee ... sued upon is part and parcel of an activity which occupies the time, attention and effort of the guarantor for the purpose of livelihood or profit on a continuing basis.” (Advance Transformer Co. v. Superior Court (1974) 44 Cal.App.3d 127, 144.)

Attachment is a drastic remedy in that it provides for the collection of a debt by seizure in advance of trial and judgment, as security for the eventual satisfaction of the judgment. Thus, under California law, attachment is a purely statutory remedy, subject to strict construction. (Epstein v. Abrams¿(1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1168.)

Section 483.010, subd. (a) provides that “except as otherwise provided by statute,” a writ of attachment can 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 483.010(a).) The purpose of the “fixed and readily ascertainable” requirement is “[t]o ensure that the defendant has meaningful notice of what she is contending with, and to ensure that the attachment amount may be accurately determined in summary proceedings prior to trial.” (Royals v. Lu (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 328, 350.)

“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.)

Here, the amount owed is readily ascertainable as the parties’ fee agreement provides a basis upon which the damages can be determined. Plaintiff has submitted a declaration quantifying this amount at $54,707.29.

Plaintiff has established the probable validity of prevailing on its breach of contract claim by demonstrating the existence of a valid agreement, Plaintiff’s complete performance, Defendant’s breaches, and Plaintiff’s resulting damages from Defendants’ breaches. (Mashian Decl. ¶¶ 3-19.) The parties entered into a valid, binding fee agreement; Plaintiff performed by providing legal services for Defendants; Defendants breached by failing to make payments due under the fee agreement, and Plaintiff incurred damages in the amount of the unpaid legal fees and costs. Accordingly, Plaintiff has shown that it is more likely than not that it will obtain a judgment against Defendant.

Purpose and Amount of Attachment

Code of Civil Procedure section 484.090 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 attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery on Plaintiff’s claim. (Mashian Decl., ¶¶ 10-11.) And the amount to be secured is greater than zero.

In order to issue a right to attach order, the Court must also find that the claim on which a plaintiff seeks an attachment is not stayed in a pending bankruptcy or discharged in a past bankruptcy. (Code Civ. Proc., §484.20.) Plaintiff maintains there is no past or pending bankruptcy of A-Team or Wang that has either stayed or discharged Plaintiff’s claims. (Mashian Dec., ¶15.)

If the creditor establishes that the claim is one upon which attachment may issue, the claim has probable validity, and attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery on the claim upon which the attachment is based, then the Court must order the clerk to issue a writ of attachment unless the debtor proves that all the property sought to be attached is exempt. (Code Civ. Proc., §484.090.

As a corporation, however, A-Team enjoys no such exemptions. Comment to Code Civ. Proc. §483.010, states that exemptions for individual defendants do not apply to corporations, partnerships, and other entities.

In order to issue a right to attach order against a defendant who is a natural person, the Court must find that the plaintiff’s claim is one which “arises out of the conduct by the defendant of a trade, business or profession.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 483.010(c).) Here, Plaintiff’s claims against Wang arise from Wang’s conduct of his profession as Chief Executive, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of A-Team. (Mashian Decl., ¶14.)

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.).) Defendants have not supported an attachable defense or claim for offset.

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 has argued for a different amount of undertaking.