Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24NNCV05346, Date: 2025-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV05346    Hearing Date: May 2, 2025    Dept: A

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is required and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Hillel Shamam (Plaintiff) brings this action against Daniel Panduro, Sandy Panduro (collectively the Panduros), and J&L Body Paint Shop, Inc. (J&L) (collectively Defendants).

Plaintiff has filed three separate applications for writs of attachment, one for each Defendant. The instant hearing concerns only their application concerning Daniel Panduro. The hearings for the other two applications are scheduled for July 18, 2025.

The Court notes that Defendants’ opposition to the application was late filed. Regardless, the Court exercises its discretion to consider the late filed opposition. It does not appear that Plaintiff has issued any reply.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) § 484.010 provides “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.” 

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.  (C.C.P. § 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.”  (C.C.P. § 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. 

(C.C.P. § 484.090.) 

“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.”  (C.C.P. § 481.190.) 

II.                 MERITS

Facts Alleged

Plaintiff alleges that he was hired in June 2022 by the Panduros to work for J&L. (Compl. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff was to be part owner and to receive an annual salary. (Compl. ¶¶ 15-16.) Plaintiff alleges he purchased 33% of J&L’s stockholdings for $650,000, selling his family home to afford the purchase price. (Compl. ¶ 17.) This agreement was not memorialized in any writing.

Plaintiff alleges that when he later requested the agreement be memorialized (in late 2022), the Panduros demanded additional payment of $60,000. (Compl. ¶¶ 22-23.) In July 2023, Plaintiff made this payment and yet received no agreement attesting to his ownership. (Compl. ¶ 24.)

On March 24, 2024, Plaintiff alleges that the Panduros contracted with him to sell him the entirety of J&L. (Compl. ¶ 27.) Plaintiff alleges the Panduros also reneged on this agreement. (Compl. ¶¶ 28-29.)

Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, that the Panduros are the alter egos of J&L Body and Paint Shop. (Compl. ¶ 10.)

General Discussion

The Court finds the instant application should be denied as Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the probable validity of their claim that the Panduros serve as the alter ego of J&L. Further, Plaintiff’s application is procedurally deficient as it fails to identify the property of a natural person with sufficient particularity.

Probable Validity & Alter Ego

“There is no litmus test to determine when the corporate veil will be pierced; rather the result will depend on the circumstances of each particular case. There are, nevertheless, two general requirements: (1) that there be such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist and (2) that, if the acts are treated as those of the corporation alone, an inequitable result will follow.” (Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486, 511 [internal quotations and citations omitted].)

Here, Plaintiff’s declaration in support contains insufficient information from which either unity of ownership or unjust result could be determined. Plaintiff states that the Panduros operate J&L out of a property which they legally own under a separate legal entity entitled Hardbread, LLC (Hardbread). Plaintiff states that the Panduros essentially pay rent to themselves, as evidenced by a $15,250.00 paid each month to Hardbread. (Shamam Decl. ¶ 20, Exh. F.) Plaintiff’s foundation for his knowledge of these subjects is that the Panduros “admitted this to me”. (Shamam Decl. ¶ 20a.) As additional evidence of the alter ego allegations, Plaintiff states that he and the Panduros received unequal compensation as employees of J&L. (Shamam Decl. ¶ 20b, Exh. F.)

The Court finds the above evidence is insufficient to establish the probable validity of Plaintiff’s alter ego claim. The statements as to the Panduro’s ownership of Hardbread (and Hardbread’s ownership of the property J&L operates on) are based entirely on an alleged statement made by Panduros. Plaintiff has produced no corroborating evidence in support of these statements.  

Further, Plaintiff has produced no evidence that an inequitable result would follow in the absence of the corporate veil being pierced. Plaintiff has produced no evidence of the assets maintained by any party involved, much less that J&L maintains insufficient assets to cover its liability in this case.

Identification of Property to be Attached

Even were Plaintiff’s submissions sufficient, their motion would remain procedurally defective. “Section 484.020, subdivision (e), allows an attachment application to simply request attachment of "all corporate property which is subject to attachment'" when the defendant is a corporation. However, ‘Where the defendant is a natural person, the description of the property shall be reasonably adequate to permit the defendant to identify the specific property sought to be attached.’” (Bank of America v. Salinas Nissan, Inc. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 260, 268.) Here, Plaintiff seeks the attachment of assets of Daniel Panduro, a natural person. Yet their application identifies the property subject to attachment in only the broadest of terms. Plaintiff’s identification of “all assets” may be sufficient when applying for attachment as to J&L, but it is improper as addressed to Daniel Panduro.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the application for writ of attachment as to Daniel Panduro is DENIED.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Hillel Shamam’s Application for Writ of Attachment came on regularly for hearing on May 2, 2025, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT AS TO DANIEL PANDURO IS DENIED.

PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.  

IT IS SO ORDERED.