Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV00937, Date: 2024-11-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00937    Hearing Date: November 25, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

TRE D, Inc., et al., v. Blake, Case no. 24SMCV00937

Hearing date November 25, 2024

Plaintiff’s Motion for Writ of Attachment and Right to Attach Order

Plaintiffs TRE D, Inc. and Wilson sue for breach of construction agreement, unjust enrichment and foreclosure of mechanic’s lien arising from defendants’ failure to pay plaintiffs for construction and repair work on three projects in Malibu. Plaintiffs recorded a mechanic’s lien of $349,909.69 on 1/26/24 and now move for a writ of attachment and right to attach order.

A writ of an attachment may issue on a claim for money based on contract where the total amount owed is equal to or greater than $500, and the amount sought is “fixed or readily ascertainable” by reference to the contract. A writ of attachment may not issue against a claim secured by real property, and it may only issue against a natural person when the claim arises out of the conduct of a “trade, business, or profession.” Code Civ. Proc. §483.010. A writ of attachment will only issue if the court finds (1) the claim on which the writ is based is one upon which an attachment may be issued, (2) plaintiff established the probable validity of the underlying claim, (3) the attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery on the claim upon which the attachment is based, and (4) the amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero. Code Civ. Proc. §484.090.

Plaintiffs correctly argue a breach of contract claim is a claim for which a writ of attachment may issue and argue the probable validity of the underlying claim.

Defendants argue plaintiffs failed to adhere to the terms of the construction contract and assert plaintiffs’ construction services were defective. Decl. Livingston, para. 5.

Defendants argue plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing the claim is based on a contract and of a "fixed or readily ascertainable amount." Cal. Code Civ. Proc §483.010(a). Defendants argue the claims arise from a contract for $3,000,000 with terms for extra work, and the invoices plaintiffs submitted violate those terms. Defendants argue this further undercuts the probable validity of plaintiffs’ claims.

Defendants argue plaintiffs previously attached a mechanic’s lien to the properties, securing the claim with real property; one of plaintiffs’ claims is foreclosure of mechanic’s lien. Code Civ. Proc. §483.010 establishes a writ of attachment may not issue against a claim secured by real property. Defendants argue the attachment of the mechanic’s lien qualifies as securing plaintiffs’ claims with real property, so the writ is improper. Plaintiffs already secured their claims with a mechanic’s lien, prohibiting issuance of a writ of attachment per Code Civ. Proc. §483.010. DENIED.