Judge: James C. Chalfant, Case: 23STCV02202, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02202    Hearing Date: March 16, 2023    Dept: 85

            The court may issue a right to attach order (Optional Form AT-120) if the plaintiff shows all of the following: (1) the claim on which the attachment is based is one on which an attachment may be issued (CCP §484.090(a)(1)); (2) the plaintiff has established the probable validity of the claim (CCP §484.090(a)(2)); (3) attachment is sought for no purpose other than the recovery on the subject claim (CCP §484.090(a)(3); and (4) the amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero (CCP §484.090(a)(4)).

            A claim has “probable validity” where it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will recover on that claim.  CCP §481.190.  In determining this issue, the court must consider the relative merits of the positions of the respective parties.  Kemp Bros. Construction, Inc. v. Titan Electric Corp., (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1484.  The court does not determine whether the claim is actually valid; that determination will be made at trial and is not affected by the decision on the application for the order.  CCP §484.050(b).

            Except in unlawful detainer actions, 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 CCP section 482.110.  CCP §483.015(a); Goldstein v. Barak Construction, (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 845, 852.  This amount must be reduced by the sum of (1) the amount of indebtedness that the defendant has in a money judgment against plaintiff, (2) the amount claimed in a cross-complaint or affirmative defense and shown would be subject to attachment against the plaintiff, and (3) the value of any security interest held by the plaintiff in the defendant’s property, together with the amount by which the acts of the plaintiff (or a prior holder of the security interest) have decreased that security interest’s value.  CCP §483.015(b); see also CCP §483.010(b) (“an attachment may not be issued on a claim which is secured by any interest in real property arising from agreement, statute, or other rule of law…However, an attachment may be issued where the claim was originally so secured but, without any act of the plaintiff or the person to whom the security was given, the security has become valueless or has decreased in value to less than the amount then owing on the claim).  A defendant claiming that the amount to be secured should be reduced because of a cross-claim or affirmative defense must make a prima facie showing that the claim would result in an attachment against the plaintiff.

            Before the issuance of a writ of attachment, the plaintiff is required to file an undertaking to pay the defendant any amount the defendant may recover for any wrongful attachment by the plaintiff in the action.  CCP §489.210.  The undertaking ordinarily is $10,000. CCP §489.220.  If the defendant objects, the court may increase the amount of undertaking to the amount determined as the probable recovery for wrongful attachment.  CCP §489.220.  The court also has inherent authority to increase the amount of the undertaking sua sponte.  North Hollywood Marble Co. v. Superior Court, (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 683, 691.

            C. Statement of Facts

            1. Hongbao’s Evidence

            Hongbao manufactures lighting products.  Zheng Decl., ¶2.  In June 2016, it began doing business with T-1.  Zheng Decl., ¶3.  The parties’ standard operating practice was that T-1 would place an order for lighting products, Hongbao would issue an invoice and deliver the goods within 60 days of the invoice, and T-1 would pay the invoice within 120 days of its issuance.  Zheng Decl., ¶4.

            In January 2017, T-1 began to fail to timely pay.  Zheng Decl., ¶5.  Hongbao continued the relationship and continued to supply T-1 so that T-1 could grow its business and develop the capacity to timely pay Hongbao.  Zheng Decl., ¶5. 

            From December 6, 2021 through October 3, 2022, Hongbao issued invoices to T-1 for orders that totaled $1,243,674.90, for goods which Hongbao delivered.  Zheng Decl., ¶¶ 6-7, Exs. A-B.  Each invoice listed 120 days as the due date for payment.  Zheng Decl., ¶6, Ex. A.  T-1 always accepted the goods and never objected to the invoices.  Zheng Decl., ¶¶ 8, 17. 

T-1 has made one $90,000 payment toward this debt.  Zheng Decl., ¶9.  The bank slips for T-1’s 2022 payments show that all other payments were for invoices issued prior to December 2021.  Zheng Decl., ¶¶ 10-13, Exs. C-D.  Since December 2022, T-1 has not made any payment.  Zheng Decl., ¶24.

            Lighting fixtures include a five-year parts warranty that does not include labor.  Zheng Decl., ¶19.  Hongbao has always issued credit for defective products, like a $120,479.51 credit in November 2020.  Zheng Decl., ¶19, Ex. G.  There are no outstanding credits owed to T-1 for defective products.  Zheng Decl., ¶19; Zhang Decl., ¶21. 

            On June 28, 2022, Hongbao CEO Paul Zheng (“Zheng”) texted T-1 CEO Artur Saakyan (“Saakyan”) about the outstanding debt.  Zheng Decl., ¶14, Ex. E.  Zheng noted that with so many containers leaving without payment, Hongbao could not arrange for new orders until T-1 paid.  Zheng Decl., ¶14, Ex. E.  Saakyan acknowledged that T-1 needed to send “large payments.”  Zheng Decl., ¶14, Ex. E.  T-1 had not paid because it had “big jobs” that did not close as expected.   Zheng Decl., ¶14, Ex. E.  Saakyan promised to sell to contractors and others to pick up more business because T-1 did not want to have a high balance with Hongbao.  Zheng Decl., ¶14, Ex. E. 

            Zhang

            Throughout August and September 2022, Susan Zhang (“Zhang”), the T-1 CFO at the time and a minority shareholder, emailed Saakyan about amounts past due to many partners totaling $166,986.81.  Zhang Decl., ¶16, Ex. D.  On August 29, 2022, Zhang told Saakyan that companies like Fed-Ex put T-1 accounts on hold due to the debt.  Zhang Decl., ¶18, Ex. E.  T-1 also did not pay Saakyan and Zhang three months of payroll since September 2022.  Zhang Decl., ¶16.  T-1 had to use proceeds that should have gone to Hongbao to pay its own operating expenses.  Zhang Decl., ¶17.  T-1’s profit and loss statement for 2022 through September shows a net loss of $191,597.20.  Zhang Decl., ¶19, Ex. F.

            In November 2022, Saakyan told CFO Zhang that he wanted to set up relationships with other manufacturers as a second option to procure lighting products.  Zhang Decl., ¶¶ 3, 6, Ex. A.  Zhang responded that T-1 first needed to pay the outstanding balance.  Zhang Decl., ¶6, Ex. A.  Saakyan said that he was finding solutions while Zhang was focused on the problems.  Zhang Decl., ¶6, Ex. A.  Zhang answered that all Saakyan was doing was buying time.  Zhang Decl., ¶6, Ex. A.  Saakyan said the point was to buy time until the economy improved so that T-1 could sell products and pay Hongbao from the proceeds.  Zhang Decl., ¶6, Ex. A.  Saakyan said that he was moving T-1 forward and would cut ties with anyone that held him back.  Zhang Decl., ¶6, Ex. A. 

            On November 18, 2022, Saaykan informed Zhang he was interested in buying her T-1 shares and would fire her if she did not sell.  Zhang Decl., ¶7.  Saakyan sent Zhang a proposal for the purchase of her shares on December 2, 2022.  Zhang Decl., ¶8, Ex. B.  Under the proposal, Zhang would still communicate with Hongbao for four months and help T-1 maintain a healthy business relationship until Saakyan was ready to tell Hongbao about the stock purchase.  Zhang Decl., ¶8, Ex. B.  Zhang believed that Saakyan wanted to maintain secrecy so Zhang could help convince Hongbao to sell more products.  Zhang Decl., ¶8.  As CFO, she knew that T-1 had no money in its account and believed that Saakyan would pay for her shares using the proceeds from sale of the current inventory of Hongbao’s goods.  Zhang Decl., ¶9. 

            On December 8, 2022, Saakyan told Zhang to make as much money as possible from sales to customers but not to pay Hongbao any of it yet.  Zhang Decl., ¶11, Ex. C.  He said: “Let’s collect asn much as we can for now.  Nothing going ot to Pual [of Hongbao] yet.”  Ex. C.  Through December 20, 2022, Saakyan tried to use Zhang to induce Hongbao to sell more of its inventory without T-1 paying what it owed.  Zhang Decl., ¶12.  When Saakyan again asked Zhang to sell her shares on December 12, 2022, she asked that T-1 prioritize paying Hongbao.  Zhang Decl., ¶13.  Saakyan fired Zhang on December 20, 2022.  Zhang Decl., ¶13.  At the time, T-1 had between $800,000 and $900,000 of Hongbao products in its inventory.  Zhang Decl., ¶14.

            Post-Zhang Firing

            On December 31, 2022, Zheng texted Saakyan that T-1 owed $1.2-1.3 million and chose that time to fire its CFO.  Zheng Decl., ¶14, Ex. F.  Saakyan replied that Zhang was not able to handle the finances and that T-1 would pay the money it owed as Saakyan had said during their last phone meeting.  Zheng Decl., ¶14, Ex. F.  Zheng replied that Saakyan could not blame T-1’s failure to pay on Zhang because T-1 was always late with payment.  Zheng Decl., ¶14, Ex. F. 

            Zheng has learned that T-1 does not intend to pay the outstanding balance, but to instead sell the Hongbao inventory to place orders with other manufacturers.  Zheng Decl., ¶20.  In December 2022, T-1 representatives visited a company called Alphalite to pick up samples of products from Hongbao’s competitor Evertie.  Zheng Decl., ¶23.

            Zheng and Zhang only have a business relationship and never conspired to overbill and overcharge T-1.  Zheng Decl., ¶¶ 21-22; Zhang Decl., ¶¶ 22-23.  Zhang still owns part of T-1 and would not want to jeopardize her interest by defrauding it.  Zhang Decl., ¶23.

            Supertek

            In January 2023, another T-1 supplier, Shanghai Supertek Lighting Co., Ltd. (“Supertek”), texted Saakyan that T-1 owed it almost $300,000.  Ye Decl., ¶5, Ex. A.  Saakyan acknowledged the debt and assured Supertek that T-1 would pay it quickly.  Ye Decl., ¶5, Ex. A.  T-1 then proposed a payment plan where it would pay $45,000 by January 13, $30,000 by January 20, and $45,000 by the end of the month contingent on receipt of a customer’s payment.  Ye Decl., ¶6, Ex. B.

            On January 13, 2023, Supertek told Saakyan it only received a $40,000 payment and not $45,000.  Ye Decl., ¶7, Ex. C.  He acknowledged the mistake and said he would wire the other $5,000 the next day, but he could not wire more because he was still waiting to receive a payment.  Ye Decl., ¶7, Ex. C.  On January 18, 2023, Saakyan had still not paid the remaining $5,000 but said he would by the end of the week.  Ye Decl., ¶7, Ex. C. 

            On January 20, 2023, Saakyan told Supertek that it would receive payment the next day.  Ye Decl., ¶8, Ex. D.  On January 23, Saakyan acknowledged that he did not send that payment because of an issue he had with the bank for the past few days.  Ye Decl., ¶¶ 8-9, Ex. D.  He said that Supertek should see a payment later that week.  Ye Decl., ¶9, Ex. E. 

            On January 26, 2023, Saakyan said that Supertek should see a deposit that Friday.  Ye Decl., ¶9, Ex. E.  On January 31, 2023, Supertek informed Saakyan that it only received the first payment of $40,000.  Ye Decl., ¶9, Ex. E.

            In February 2023, Saakyan began to make excuses for the failure to pay Supertek.  Ye Decl., ¶10, Ex. F.  Supertek replied that Saakyan should not make excuses as to why T-1 was not paying the amount owed, including Hongbao’s suit against T-1.  Ye Decl., ¶10, Ex. F. 

            On February 11, 2023, Supertek warned Saakyan that if T-1 did not pay Supertek instead of just saying it would, Supertek would sue.  Ye Decl., ¶11, Ex. G.  Saakyan said he would send a wire and receipt but never did.  Ye Decl., ¶¶ 11-12, Ex. G.

            2. T-1’s Evidence

            The parties had a mutual understanding since the beginning of their relationship that Hongbao would accept orders and deliver products to T-1, T-1 would sell to customers, and T-1 would pay Hongbao’s invoices upon receipt of payment from its customers.  Saakyan Decl., ¶3.  Until Zhang’s termination as T-1’s CFO, Hongbao never objected to T-1’s payment of invoices months after the 120-day deadline.  Saakyan Decl., ¶¶ 6-8.

            Hongbao delivered defective products from time to time.  Saakyan Decl., ¶25.  Throughout their relationship, T-1 and Hongbao agreed to share the additional cost of T-1 ordering and repurchasing replacements for defective Hongbao products.  Saakyan Decl., ¶¶ 25-28.  Hongbao would bear its share of the cost via credit to T-1.  Saakyan Decl., ¶29.  Zhang was responsible for communicating with Hongbao and working with it to obtain credit for the return merchandise authorizations (“RMA”).  Saakyan Decl., ¶30.  Until a little before Zhang left, T-1 was not aware of the full scope of the hundreds of thousands of dollars of credit Hongbao owed on RMAs.  Saakyan Decl., ¶¶ 31-33.  This led T-1 to pause payments after November 2022.  Saakyan Decl., ¶37.

A January 2023 letter from T-1 employee Margarita Vargas (“Vargas”) notes that while Zhang worked at T-1, she could not to use Quickbooks, pay sales tax, inventory reports, or perform other basic tasks.  Opp. Ex. E.  Zhang instead would assign these tasks to other employees like Vargas.  Opp. Ex. E.

            On December 18, 2022, T-1 employee Melissa DeNicola (“DeNicola”) complained that Zhang was unfriendly and unwelcoming.  Opp. Ex. F.  She also failed to help DeNicola obtain a pay increase that T-1 promised her after a 3-month probationary period.  Opp. Ex. F. 

            In December of 2022, T-1 fired Zhang for failure to seek credit from Hongbao for defective products pursuant to the parties’ replacement agreement.  Saakyan Decl., ¶9.  T-1 also discovered that Zhang had conspired with Zheng to overcharge T-1, based on a comparison of Hongbao’s unit price for  a product in 2019 compared to the price charged for the same product by another vendor in 2023, even after the vendor imposed a 2023 price increase.  Saakyan Decl., ¶¶ 10-15, Exs. A-B; Opp. Exs. G-H. 

            After firing Zhang, T-1 has become current on almost all vendor invoices for which T-1 was unknowingly behind.  Saakyan Decl., ¶16.  Because of the overbilling, T-1 does not know how much it owes Hongbao, if anything.  Saakyan Decl., ¶17.

            The relationship between Zhang and Hongbao is unclear.  Saakyan Decl., ¶18.  Although T-1’s sales grew every year, profits did not.  Saakyan Decl., ¶19.   Zhang had custody and control of all company financial records during her employment and has restricted Saakyan’s access to these records after her termination.  Saakyan Decl., ¶¶ 20-21.  She remains in sole possession of the company laptop without T-1’s permission.  Saakyan Decl., ¶21. Zhang now offers a profit and loss statement (Zhang Decl., ¶19, Ex. F) that she prepared from the withheld records; T-1 accountants did not generate it.  Saakyan Decl., ¶¶ 22-23.  Until Zhang gives back these records, T-1 cannot confirm how much it owes.  Saakyan Decl., ¶24.  Saakyan has never said that T-1 will not pay the amounts it truly owes.  Saakyan Decl., ¶36.

            In January 2023, Saakyan asked for a meeting with Hongbao shareholders to discuss how T-1 would make payments on the balance owed.  Saakyan Decl., ¶44, Ex. C.  He added that he wanted to pay the debt but that there were a lot of RMAs the parties needed to address before he could.  Saakyan Decl., ¶45, Ex. D.

            Hongbao makes no showing of hardship it would suffer without attachment.  Saakyan Decl., ¶41.

            E. Analysis

            Plaintiff Hongbao applies for a right to attach order against T-1 in the amount of $1,153,674.90.  

            1. Renewed Motion

            A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law. CCP §1008(b).  The moving party must present an attorney declaration stating when the party previously appeared, who the judge was, how the judge ruled, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. §1008(b).  The party must also provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to produce such evidence in the first application.  Kalivas, supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at 1160-61.  The requirement of satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence earlier can only be described as a strict requirement of diligence.  Garcia, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at 690. 

The court denied Hongbao’s ex parte application for a right to attach order against T-1, for failure to prove either the debt or irreparable harm.  Opp. Ex. A.  The court informed Hongbao that any renewed motion must comply with CCP section 1008(b) with the exception of the requirement for a showing of due diligence.  Opp. Ex. A. 

            Although the court order excused Hongao from the due diligence requirement (Opp. Ex. A), Hongbao fails to provide an attorney declaration compliant with CCP section 1008(b) and the court’s order. [2]  Hongbao asserts that the court denied its ex parte application for failure to show irreparable harm, which is not an element of a noticed motion.  Hongbao also argues that it is entitled to apply for a right to attach order under CCP section 485.220(b) as a matter of right.  Reply at 3. 

Not so.  CCP section 485.220(b) permits a noticed application for a right to attach order where an ex parte application is denied for lack of great or irreparable harm under CCP section 485.010.  The court denied the ex parte application both for lack of a showing of irreparable harm and for failure to demonstrate the amount owed, which is a ruling on the merits.  Opp. Ex. A.  In any event, Hongbao does not provide any attorney declaration compliant with the court’s order.

The court could deny the application for failure to comply with the court’s order but instead exercises its discretion to consider it.

            2. A Claim Based on a Contract and on Which Attachment May Be Based 

            A writ of attachment may 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).  CCP §483.010(a). 

            Hongbao’s claim against T-1 is for breach of contract based on the invoices for products that Hongbao delivered.  Zheng Decl., ¶¶ 6-7, Exs. A-B.  This is a claim on which attachment may be based. 

            3. An Amount Due That is Fixed and Readily Ascertainable  

            A claim is “readily ascertainable” where the damages may be readily ascertained by reference to the contract and the basis of the calculation appears to be reasonable and definite.  CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Super DVD, Inc., (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 537, 540-41.  The fact that the damages are unliquidated is not determinative.  Id.  But the contract must furnish a standard by which the amount may be ascertained and there must be a basis by which the damages can be determined by proof.  Id. (citations omitted). 

            Hongbao presents evidence that from December 6, 2021 through October 3, 2022 it issued to T-1 invoices totaling $1,243,674.90 for goods delivered pursuant to T-1’s purchase orders.  Zheng Decl., ¶¶ 6-7, Exs. A-B.  Although T-1 made some payments during this time, Hongbao provides bank slips as evidence that only one $90,000 payment applied to these invoices.  Zheng Decl., ¶¶ 9-13, Exs. C-D.  The unpaid portion of the invoices is $1,153,674.90.

            T-1 argues that the amount it owes is not readily ascertainable for two reasons.  First, a comparison of Hongbao’s unit price of products in 2019 compared to other vendors after a 2023 price increase shows that Hongbao overbilled T-1 for its products.  Saakyan Decl., ¶¶ 13-15, Exs. A-B; Opp. Exs. G-H. 

This contention is irrelevant.  Hongbao had no duty to offer its products to the same parties at the same price.  The purchase orders and invoices reflect the product price, and T-1 makes no showing that it was charged more than the price agreed upon.  Honbao also contends that the products had different product numbers and were ordered in significantly different quantities.  Reply at 6. 

            Second, T-1 also asserts that Hongbao owes T-1 hundreds of thousands of dollars in credit for RMAs.  Opp. at 5.  According to T-1, T-1 and Hongbao agreed to share in T-1’s cost of ordering and replacing products when Hongbao sent defective products.  Saakyan Decl., ¶¶ 25-28. Hongbao would bear its share of the cost via credit to T-1.  Saakyan Decl., ¶29.  Zhang was responsible for communicating with Hongbao and working with it to obtain credit for the RMAs.  Saakyan Decl., ¶30.  T-1 asserts that it discovered that Hongbao owed money on unclaimed RMAs just before Zhang left, but she has the company laptop with the financial records needed to determine how much Hongbao owes.  Saakyan Decl., ¶¶21-24; Opp. at 5, 10.[3]

            T-1 presents only conclusions that the parties agreed to share T-1’s replacement costs.  Saakyan Decl., ¶¶ 25-28.  However, Hongbao presents evidence that it has always issued credit for defective products, like a $120,479.51 credit in November 2020.  Zheng Decl., ¶19, Ex. G.  This credit included the cost of labor replacement.  Hongbao states that there are no outstanding credits owed to T-1 for defective products.  Zheng Decl., ¶19; Zhang Decl., ¶21. 

            T-1 fails to show that there are any outstanding costs owed by Hongbao for defective products, or even that there are any outstanding defective products.  T-1’s effort to blame Zhang for her failure to process RMAs is an issue between T-1 and her.  It also is hard to believe that Zhang has the only copy of the necessary T-1 records.  Reply at 8. 

            The ascertainable damages total $1,153,674.90 as claimed.

            4. Probability of Success 

            A claim has “probable validity” where it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will recover on that claim.  CCP §481.190.  In determining this issue, the court must consider the relative merits of the positions of the respective parties.  Kemp Bros. Construction, Inc. v. Titan Electric Corp., (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1484.  The court does not determine whether the claim is actually valid; that determination will be made at trial and is not affected by the decision on the application for the order.  CCP §484.050(b). 

            The invoices serve as evidence that the parties agreed to the sale of the products therein for the amounts listed.  Zheng Decl., ¶¶ 6-7, Exs. A-B. 

            a. Waiver

            A waiver of rights under a contract can be accomplished by conduct, unless the agreement states that all waivers must be in writing.  Cassidy Podell Lynch, Inc. v Snydergeneral Corp. (3d Cir. 1991) 944 F.2d 1131.  Acceptance of past delinquencies in payment without objection waives the payee’s right to insist upon the strict letter of the contracts to take advantage of past delinquencies to forfeit the contract and payments made to date.  Pearson v. Brown, (“Pearson”) (1915) 27 Cal. App. 125, 129.  Such conduct will be regarded as creating such a temporary suspension of the right of forfeiture which can only be restored by giving a definite and specific notice of an intention to enforce it.  Id. (citing Stevinson v. Joy (1912), 164 Cal. 279, 285).

            T-1 contends that the parties had an understanding that it would pay Hongbao following receipt of payment from T-1’s customer.  Although Hongbao’s invoices contained language requiring payment within 120 days, T-1 repeatedly made payments after the 120-day deadline that Hongbao accepted.  Opp. at 3-4.  T-1 relies on Pearson to contend that Hongbao waived its right to seek forfeiture without notice that it would be exercised if T-1 did not pay the balance within a reasonable time.  Opp. at 4.

Hongbao agrees that, although T-1 did not pay invoices within the 120-day deadline, Hongbao did not strictly enforce the deadline so that T-1 could grow its business.  Zheng Decl., ¶5.  It is clear, however, that Hongbao did not waive its right to payment.  On June 28, 2022, Zheng texted Saakyan that, with so many containers leaving without payment, Hongbao could not arrange for new orders until T-1 paid.  Zheng Decl., ¶14, Ex. E.  On December 31, 2022, Zheng again asked about the debt and explained that Saakyan could not blame this ongoing issue on Zhang’s termination.  Zheng Decl., ¶14, Ex. F. 

            As Hongbao argues, it is not suing T-1 to terminate their contract based on payments beyond the 120-day deadline, it is suing to collect the payments that remain unpaid.  Reply at 6.  As such, Pearson, supra, 27 Cal.App. at 129, in which the defendant seller of real property attempted to cancel the parties’ contract and forfeit the payments made to date, is inapplicable.  Hangbao’s invoices date from December 6, 2021 through October 3, 2022 (Zheng Decl., ¶¶ 6-7, Exs. A-B), and T-1 has not made any payment since December 2022.  Zheng Decl., ¶24.  Hangbao is entitled to recover on its invoices.  To the extent that T-1 is entitled to notice that Hangbao intends to enforce them, Hangbao’s lawsuit and two previous ex parte applications provide that notice.[4]

            b. Conclusion

            Hongbao has demonstrated a probability of success on the merits.

            5. Attachment Sought for a Proper Purpose¿ 

            Attachment must not be sought for a purpose other than the recovery on the claim upon which attachment is based.¿ CCP §484.090(a)(3).  Hongbao seeks attachment for a proper purpose. 

            F. Conclusion

            Hongbao’s application for a right to attach order is granted in the amount of $1,153,674.90.  No writ shall issue until Hongbao posts a $10,000 bond.