Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 23SMUD01312, Date: 2024-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMUD01312    Hearing Date: September 19, 2024    Dept: O

  Case Name:  Shores, LLC, v. Abode LA, LLC, et al.

SUBJECT:                APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Shores, LLC

RESP. PARTY:         Defendant Abode LA, LLC,

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Shores, LLC (1) Application for Writ of Attachment as to Defendant Abode LA, LLC, is GRANTED. Plaintiff seeks a writ as to Defendant in the amount of $793,104.60. Plaintiffs are ordered to post an undertaking in the amount of $10,000. 

1.  The Claim:

Plaintiff establishes Defendant Abode LA, LLC (“Abode”) executed the 22 Leases and that each of the 22 Leases provides a monthly rental amount for each unit. (See Levine Decl., ¶ 4; Hoomissen Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. 10.) The agreed rent under a lease is evidence of the rental value, or reasonable value of use. (See, Harris v. Bissell (1921) 54 Cal.App. 307; 12 Witkin, Summary 11th Real Prop § 771 (2024).)

Plaintiff establishes Abode owes $760,104.60 to Plaintiff in daily rental damages and provides the method by which they obtained that number. (See Levine Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. 3; See Motion, p. 12:11–18.) Plaintiff establishes attorney fees and costs at capped by lease agreements at $33,000 ($1500 x 22 units), and Plaintiff’s counsel declares his time billed far surpasses the $33,000 in recoverable fees. (Levine Decl., ¶ 6; Hoomissen Decl., ¶ 13.)  Plaintiff establishes that the amount of attachment is readily discernable and over $500.

2.  Probable Validity of the Claim:

Plaintiff establishes that Abode entered in the lease agreements for the 22 units at issue. (See Levine Decl., ¶ 4; Van Hoomissen Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. 10.) Plaintiff establishes Abode took possession of the relevant units and Plaintiff terminated the month-to-month tenancies on 6-4-23. (Levine Decl., ¶ 11; Van Hoomissen Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4, Ex. 1, 2.) Plaintiff establishes daily rental damages at $760,104.60. (Levine Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. 3.)

Abode does not establish any reasonable defense to attachment in the opposition. Reasonable rental value can be obtained through the contract itself as demonstrated by Plaintiff because the contract amount is “reasonable and definite.” (See CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc., supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 541 [“master lease and corresponding lease schedules provided clear formula for computation of damages: monthly rent multiplied by unexpired term].)  Abode fails to show mitigation defense applies to Plaintiff’s application for a writ of attachment.  More important, Abode does not submit any competent or persuasive evidence that supports its claimed defenses failure to mitigate damages, offset or otherwise. Indeed, in his own declaration, Mr. Weis fails to show how he has personal knowledge of the facts stated in his declaration or otherwise show the proper foundation for the admissibility of any of the exhibits he attaches to his declaration as exhibits A-D.  Regardless, even if the Court were to consider that evidence, the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden to show the probable validity of its claims. (See, Hobbs v. Weiss (1999) 73 Cal. App.4th 76, 80 (court must “consider the relative merits of the positions of the respective parties and make a determination of the probable outcome of the litigation”).  The trial court is not required to accept as true the sworn testimony of any witness or undisputed affidavit testimony. It may make contrary findings based on inferences drawn from other evidence.  See Bank of America v. Salinas Nissan (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 260, 273.

3.  Suit for Damages.

Yes. 

4.  Property to be Attached: 

 Plaintiff seeks to attach all Abode property in California for which there is a method of levy.

All property within California held by a corporation, partnership or unincorporated association is subject to attachment if there is a statutory method of levy for the property (CCP §487.010(a),(b)).  By logical extension, the above requirement applies to limited liability companies.  See CCP §481.170 (defining “person” for attachment purposes to include corporations, partnerships, unincorporated associations and limited liability companies.)

5.  Undertaking:

 An undertaking is required pursuant to CCP §489.210 which provides that, "Before issuance of a writ of attachment . . ., the plaintiff shall file an undertaking to pay the defendant any amount the defendant may recover for any wrongful attachment by the plaintiff in the action."  A flat amount of undertaking is provided for by statute: $10,000 (CCP §489.220(a)).  The Court may set a higher amount pursuant to CCP §489.220(b) if there is an objection to the undertaking.

Plaintiffs are ordered to provide an undertaking of $10,000

6.  Claim of Exemption.  None filed or applicable.