Case No. 21SMCV02012 KIM RICKETTS vs KEITH PHILLIPS, et al.

Plaintiff Rickett’s Application for Writ of Attachment as to Keith Phillips and Gwendolyn Phillips is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

 Plaintiff failed to submit an application for writ of attachment, either on Judicial Council Form AT-105 or a custom-drafted application.  Plaintiff's papers refer to an application but none was filed.

The Court cannot determine what property of Defendants, who are natural persons, Plaintiff seeks to attach.  Where the defendant is an individual, the application must specify the particular property sought to be attached.  See CCP §487.010.

 Plaintiff relies on the declaration of counsel to establish the existence and nature of the promissory note sued upon.  Plaintiff's counsel fails to set forth in the declaration facts indicating how she has personal knowledge of the events testified to.  

The Court cannot determine based on Plaintiff's evidence whether the obligation arises out of defendant's trade, business or profession.  CCP 483.010(c).  Plaintiff's counsel testifies that the note was "business promissory note" but fails to attest to facts establishing personal knowledge to support such a claim.  In addition, "business promissory note" is ambiguous and conclusory.  

Plaintiff did not submit a proposed Right to Attach Order.