Judge James C. Chalfant, Case Number: 23STCV22693, Date: 2024-06-13 Tentative Ruling

World Tech Toys, Inc. v. Straight Forwarding, Inc., 23STCV22693

Tentative decision on application for right to attach order: denied

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Straight Forwarding, Inc. (“SFI”) applies for right to attach order against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant World Trading 23, Inc. (“WT23”).

The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply, and renders the following tentative decision.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant WT23, commenced this action on July 14, 2022. The operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed on March 21, 2024, against Defendant/Cross-Complainant SFI, alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) reformation of contract based upon illegality; (3) conversion; (4) intentional interference with contractual relations; (5) intentional interference with prospective economic relations; (6) money had and received; and (7) declaratory relief. The FAC alleges in pertinent part as follows.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant WT23 and Defendant/Cross-Complainant SFI entered into a Credit Application and Agreement (“Agreement”) on or about March 22, 2019 for SFI to organize WT23’s shipments from the manufacturer to WT23’s point of delivery. FAC ¶¶15, 17, Ex. A.

On or about February 2022, SFI began to hold WT23’s shipments and refused to allow delivery of those shipments to WT23. FAC ¶25. SFI also imposed shipping costs and storage fees for those shipments without a contractual basis. FAC ¶25. SFI refused to allow WT23 to move and store the containers at its own storage facilities so as to avoid the need to incur the shipping charges and storage fees. FAC ¶27.

In March 2022, WT23 expressly advised SFI in writing to stop importing any more containers and SFI continued to do so anyway. FAC ¶28.

In or about May 2022, SFI advised WT23 that it would allow the release of individual containers if WT12 agreed to pay shipping charges and a per-container premium that would go towards paying down the outstanding balance purportedly owed. FAC ¶29. WT23 reluctantly agreed to pay the shipping charges and per-container premium for 15 containers and SFI released those containers. FAC ¶30.

On June 29, 2022, WT23 send a demand letter to SFI stating that WT23 would be willing to pay the shipping charges for all containers being improperly held if SFI released them immediately. FAC ¶31. SFI insisted that release of the containers would require payment of the shipping charges and a per-container premium until all outstanding balances were paid. FAC ¶31.

On July 6, 2022, SFI transferred some of WT23’s containers to the Port of Long Beach and the Federal Maritime Commission (“FMC”) for storage. FAC ¶32. WT23 is now incurring demurrage and detention charges for several thousands of dollars per container per month and reputation risk as a shipper of intentional goods. FAC ¶32. On July 7, 2022, SFI reiterated its refusal to release any of the containers unless WT23 paid all outstanding balances purportedly owed and advised that it would no longer pay the storages costs and would allow the storage facility to auction the contents of the containers. FAC ¶33.

WT23 is still being denied access to at least 32 containers, including certain toys and goods with an estimated value of $6 million that need to be shipped to third-party retailers by July 2022. FAC ¶34.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant WT23 seeks (1) compensatory damages in the amount of at least $500,000, (2) consequential damages in the amount of at least $500,000, (3) disgorgement of all fees and other charges paid by WT23 to which SFI was not legally or contractually entitled, (4) treble damages for goods unlawfully retained and stolen by SFI, (5) punitive damages, (6) reformation of the Agreement, (7) declaratory relief under the Agreement, (8) interest of 10% from the date of filing of the FAC, (9) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and (10) such other and further relief deemed just and appropriate by the court. FAC, pp. 13-14.

On December 2, 2022, Defendant/Cross-Complainant filed a Cross-Complaint against WT23 and World Tech Toys, Inc. (“WTT”), alleging causes of action for breach of contract, goods and services rendered, and account stated. The Cross-Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows.

In or about March 2019, WTT and WT23 approached SFI to request that SFI arrange the transportation of WTT's merchandise from Asia to various destinations in the United States. X-Compl. ¶7.

In connection with this request, WT23 executed the Agreement, which sets forth SFI's terms and conditions of service. X-Compl. ¶8, Ex. A. In the Agreement, WT23 requested a credit limit of $ 100,000 and credit terms of NET 30 days. X-Compl. ¶9. By e-mail dated April 3, 2019, SFI approved the Agreement, subject to a credit limit of $ 30,000 and credit terms of NET 30 days. X-Compl. ¶10.

Between April 2019 and August 2021, Cross-Defendants hired SFI to arrange transportation of over 75 shipments of WTT's merchandise from Asia to the United States. For each of these shipments, SFI arranged for air transportation, ocean transportation and/or customs clearance at the place of delivery without incident. X-Compl. ¶11.

At all times between April 2019 and August 2021, the outstanding balance owed by Cross-Defendants to SFI for these 9 services remained below the agreed upon $ 30,000 credit limit. Therefore, SFI invoiced Cross-Defendants for these services under the credit terms of NET 30 days (payment due within 30 days of the date of invoice), pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. X-Compl. ¶12.

Between August and October 2021, Cross-Defendants hired SFI to arrange transportation for approximately 40 more 16 shipments of WTT's merchandise from Asia to the United States. SFI's fees for services provided for these shipments (including fees advanced by SFI on Cross-Defendants' behalf) were in excess of $ 500,000. X-Compl. ¶13.

In or about October 2021, SFI informed Cross-Defendants that the unpaid fees exceeded the agreed upon $30,000 credit limit, and that Cross-Defendants' payment for all pending and future shipments would be due upon delivery, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. X-Compl. ¶14.

Between October 2021 and January 2022, the approximately 40 shipments of WTT's merchandise for which SFI had arranged ocean transportation were delivered to marine terminals in the California. Cross-Defendants picked up some of these containers from the marine terminals. Cross-Defendants were unable to pick up some of these containers because they refused to pay SFI's invoiced freight and related charges. X-Compl. ¶15

In or about January 2022, Cross-Defendants requested that SFI find warehouse storage for the container loads that were stuck at the marine terminals, and for other container loads of which Cross-Defendants had failed to take immediate delivery. X-Compl. ¶16.

In January and February 2022, at the request of Cross-Defendants, SFI arranged for the warehouse storage of approximately 17 container loads of WTT's merchandise. Between January and July 2022, an additional four containers loads of WTT's goods were sent by the terminal to a general order warehouse due to WTT's failure to take delivery of the containers. X-Compl. ¶17.

Between October 2021 and the present, SFI sent numerous invoices and account statements to Cross-Defendants for services provided by under the Agreement, including ocean freight charges, air freight charges, handling charges, customs charges, and storage charges. X-Compl. ¶18.

Cross-Defendants have failed and refused to pay for services provided by SFI under the Agreement. To date, these outstanding charges exceed $1,100,000. X-Compl. ¶19.

Cross-Complainant SFI prays for judgment in its favor in an amount to be proven at trial, an award of court costs and attorney fees, interest as allowed by contract or law, and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. X-Compl., pp. 8-9.

On July 20, 2022, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant WT23 filed an ex parte application for an order to show cause and temporary restraining order. The matter was taken off calendar the same day.

On November 14, 2022, the court overruled Defendant/Cross-Complainant SFI’s demurrer and denied its motion to strike.

On December 2, 2022, Defendant/Cross-Complainant SFI filed its Answer and Cross-Complaint.

On January 10, 2023, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant WT23 filed its Answer to Cross-Complaint.

Attachment is a prejudgment remedy providing for the seizure of one or more of the defendant’s assets to aid in the collection of a money demand pending the outcome of the trial of the action. See Whitehouse v. Six Corporation, (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 527, 533. In 1972, and in a 1977 comprehensive revision, the Legislature enacted attachment legislation (CCP §481.010 et seq.) that meets the due process requirements set forth in Randone v. Appellate Department, (1971) 5 Cal.3d 536. See Western Steel & Ship Repair v. RMI, (12986) 176 Cal.App.3d 1108, 1115. As the attachment statutes are purely the creation of the Legislature, they are strictly construed. Vershbow v. Reiner, (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 879, 882.

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). A claim is “readily ascertainable” where the amount due may be clearly ascertained from the contract and calculated by evidence; the fact that damages are unliquidated is not determinative. CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Super DVD, Inc., (“CIT”) (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 537, 540-41 (attachment appropriate for claim based on rent calculation for lease of commercial equipment).

All property within California of a corporation, association, or partnership is subject to attachment if there is a method of levy for the property. CCP §487.010(a), (b). While a trustee is a natural person, a trust is not. Therefore, a trust’s property is subject to attachment on the same basis as a corporation or partnership. Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn & Rossi v. Wilson, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at 4.

The plaintiff may apply for a right to attach order by noticing a hearing for the order and serving the defendant with summons and complaint, notice of the application, and supporting papers any time after filing the complaint. CCP §484.010. Notice of the application must be given pursuant to CCP section 1005, sixteen court days before the hearing. See ibid.

The notice of the application and the application may be made on Judicial Council forms (Optional Forms AT-105, 115). The application must 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. CCP §484.030.

Where the defendant is a corporation, a general reference to “all corporate property which is subject to attachment pursuant to subdivision (a) of Code of Civil Procedure Section 487.010” is sufficient. CCP §484.020(e). Where the defendant is a partnership or other unincorporated association, a reference to “all property of the partnership or other unincorporated association which is subject to attachment pursuant to subdivision (b) of Code of Civil Procedure Section 487.010” is sufficient. CCP §484.020(e). A specific description of property is not required for corporations and partnerships as they generally have no exempt property. Bank of America v. Salinas Nissan, Inc., (“Bank of America”) (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 260, 268.

A defendant who opposes issuance of the order must file and serve a notice of opposition and supporting affidavit as required by CCP section 484.060 not later than five court days prior to the date set for hearing. CCP §484.050(e). The notice of opposition may be made on a Judicial Council form (Optional Form AT-155).

The plaintiff may file and serve a reply two court days prior to the date set for the hearing. CCP §484.060(c).

At the hearing, the court determines whether the plaintiff should receive a right to attach order and whether any property which the plaintiff seeks to attach is exempt from attachment. The defendant may appear the hearing. CCP §484.050(h). The court generally will evaluate the attachment application based solely on the pleadings and supporting affidavits without taking additional evidence. Bank of America, supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at 273. A verified complaint may be used in lieu of or in addition to an affidavit if it states evidentiary facts. CCP §482.040. The plaintiff has the burden of proof, and the court is not required to accept as true any affidavit even if it is undisputed. See Bank of America, supra, at 271, 273.

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., (“Kemp”) (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.

In March 2019, WT23 approached SFI to arrange transportation of various container loads of merchandise from Asia to the United States. Pian Decl., ¶4. In connection with this request, on March 22, 2019, WT23 executed the Agreement wherein WT23 requested a credit limit of $100,000 and credit terms of NET 30 days. Pian Decl., ¶4, Ex. A. On April 4, 2019, SFI approved the Agreement via email subject to a credit limit of $30,000 and credit terms of NET 30 days. Pian Decl., ¶5, Ex. B.

Between April 2019 and August 2021, WT23 hired SFI to arrange transportation for several hundred shipments of merchandise from China to the United States, which including air and/or ocean transportation, customs clearance, and other ancillary services at the port of discharge. Pian Decl., ¶6. For each of these shipments, SFI’s services were performed pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement. Pian Decl., ¶7. The shipments were delivered to the port of discharge and tendered to WT23 without incident. Pian Decl., ¶7.

For each of these shipments, SFI invoiced WT23 for its services, including all fees invoiced by SFI’s subcontracted transportation providers, around the time each shipment arrived at the port of discharge in the United States. Pian Decl., ¶8. WT23 at times failed to remit payment within 30 days of the invoice date as required under the Agreement. Pian Decl., ¶8. As of August 2, 2021, WT23 owed an outstanding balance of $204,657. Pian Decl., ¶8.

In late August and September 2021, WT23 hired SFI to arrange transportation for an additional 75 container shipments of merchandise from China to the United States (“Fall Shipments”). Pian Decl., ¶9. SFI quoted WT23 a cost for the Fall Shipments of approximately $12,000 per container (approximately $900,00.00 in total) based on the prevailing freight rates at the time. Pian Decl., ¶9.

Beginning in November 2021, the Fall Shipments began to arrive at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California. Pian Decl., ¶10. SFI invoiced WT23 around the time to each shipment arrived at the marine terminal in the United States. Pian Decl., ¶10. WT23 failed to pay SFI for many of the invoices for the Fall Shipments within 30 days as required by the Agreement. Pian Decl., ¶11.

By December 31, 2021, WT23 had a past due balance owed to SFI exceeding $500,000. Pian Decl., ¶11.

On January 25, 2022, Serjan Markari (“Markari”) of WT23 contacted SFI’s senior Sales Manager Ya-Wen Pian (“Pian”) via text message to state that WT23 could not take delivery of some containers from the Fall Shipments that had been delivered to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and requested SFI arrange for storage of these containers. Pian Decl., ¶12, Ex. C.

Throughout January 2022, the last of the Fall Shipments arrived at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Pian Decl., ¶14. SFI invoiced WT23 for transportation charges around the time each shipment arrived at a marine terminal. Pian Decl., ¶14. By the end of January 2022, WT23 had an unpaid balance exceeding $600,000. Pian Decl., ¶14.

On January 31, 2024, Pian sent Markari an email that SFI would release shipments only upon payment of transportation charges pursuant to the Agreement. Pian Decl., ¶15, Ex. E.

On February 2, 2022, Markari texted Pian to confirm that WT23 wanted all container shipments that were bound for general order (i.e., those for which WT23 had not paid all transportation fees) to be placed in warehouse storage. Pian Decl., ¶13, Ex. D. SFI placed 28 of WT23’s containers in storage over the following weeks at a warehouse in Paramount, California. Pian Decl., ¶13.

In June 2022, four additional container shipments arrived at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Pian Decl., ¶18. SFI sent WT23 invoices for these shipments and WT23 failed to pay. Pian Decl., ¶18. Sometime in July 2022, the marine terminal or possibly the ocean carrier that had transported the shipments sent the idled shipments to a general order warehouse pending payment of the outstanding charges. Pian Decl., ¶19. SFI was sent monthly invoices for storage of the shipments at the general order warehouse and forwarded these charges to WT23. Pian Decl., ¶19.

Throughout July and August 2022, SFI repeatedly reminded WT23 of the past due balance for prior shipments that now exceeded $900,000 and that monthly storage charges were continuing to accrue for the containers stored at the general order warehouse. Pian Decl., ¶20. SFI requested that WT23 propose a workable payment schedule to pay down the past due balance but WT23 never did. Pian Decl., ¶20.

Since the end of August 2022, WT23 has not paid any portion of the past due balance, and monthly storage charges have continued to accrue for 16 container shipments that remain in a SFI-arranged warehouse and three container shipments that were sent to the general order warehouse. Pian Decl., ¶21. SFI sent monthly invoices for these charges, as well as an accounting statement of the new storage charges and all unpaid prior charges. Pian Decl., ¶21.

As of April 24, 2024, the charges owed by WT23 are $1,559,863.69, as reflected on the accounting statement. Pian Decl., ¶22, Ex. F.

WT23 signed the Agreement understanding that SFI was agreeing to deliver all shipments, irrespective of whether payment was made, and WT23 would have approximately 30 days to have the goods brought to its warehouse, packaged and shipped to its customers, and receive payment from customers for the goods, which WT23 then would use to pay SFI. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶6. WT23 did not have any involvement in drafting the Agreement; it was presented by SFI on a take-it-or-leave-it-basis. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶5.

Between April 2019 and August 2021, SFI coordinated the importation of WT23’s shipments from China. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶7. SFI invoiced WT23 at about the time the shipments arrived in the United States, and SFI delivered those shipments to WT23’s chosen destination (typically its warehouse) regardless of its credit balance. During this time, the amount WT23 owed substantially increased from the original $30,000 credit line. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶7. By August 2, 2021, WT23’s credit balance was $204,657. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶7. Nonetheless, SFI continued to deliver shipments to WT23. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶7. WT23 relied upon the parties’ course of dealing and continued to have SFI provide freight forwarding services to WT23. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶7.

In or about September 2021, WT23’s Chief Executive Officer, Kevork Kouyoumjan (“Kouyoumjan”), requested that SFI’s agent in China facilitate shipment of approximately 75 cargo containers of toys and other goods from China to fill multiple orders with major retailers for the holiday shopping season (the Holiday Shipments). Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶8. A dispute arose regarding the Holiday Shipments because SFI attempted to charge excessive rates. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶9. WT23 refused to pay the rates demanded but offered to pay prevailing market rates. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶9. SFI refused to reduce its rates for the Holiday Shipments. SFI delivered all the Holiday Shipments to WT23. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶9. As a result, WT23’s purported balance increased to over $500,000. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶9.

The request by WT23’s warehouse manager, Markari, for the temporary storage of two containers was an isolated incident. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶10. The reason for this request was that the standard period to remove goods from the port without charge is two days and WT23’s truck had an accident that rendered it unavailable for several days. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶10. The request had nothing to do with WT23’s ability to store every container that was imported into the United States. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶10. Moreover, the parties’ exchange confirms the agreement between the parties that WT23 could instruct where goods would be delivered prior to any payment obligation for that shipment and regardless of whether there was any balance due to SFI. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶10.

On January 31, 2022, Pian notified Kouyoumjan that SFI intended to withhold shipments absent payment of its outstanding balance in direct breach of the Agreement and the parties’ course of dealing. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶11. SFI also continued to unilaterally impose shipping costs and storage fees for those shipments well above those charged by other freight forwarders and for which SFI had no legal or contractual basis to charge. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶11.

Kouyoumjan continued efforts to get SFI to release its shipments and to stop SFI from continuing to add additional shipping fees and storage charges and offered to have SFI deliver the containers to WT23’s warehouse in order to avoid any storage or demurrage fees. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶12. Pian refused these offers. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶12.

In March 2022, Kouyoumjan expressly directed Pian in writing to stop importing any more containers. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶13, Ex. B. Despite these express instructions, SFI continued to pick up containers in China with Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant WT23 goods, incurring the cost of import, and then refusing to deliver the containers to WT23 when they arrived in the United States causing WT23 to incur additional fees and charges for the shipping and storage of those containers. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶13.

In or about May 2022, Pian advised Kouyoumjan that it would allow the release of individual containers if WT23 agreed to pay shipping charges for the containers being released as well as a per-container premium that would go to paying down the outstanding balance SFI contended that Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant WT23 owed. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶14. Faced with the need to fill orders from its clients, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant WT23 paid the shipping charges and the per-container premium for 15 of the containers. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶14. After payment, SFI released the containers to WT23. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶14.

On June 29, 2022, Kouyoumjan sent a demand letter to SFI advising that WT23 would be willing to pay the shipping charges for all of the containers being held if SFI released all the containers immediately, and also would discuss a payment plan for previous debt. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶15, Ex. C. SFI once again refused insisted that containers would only be released upon the payment of shipping charges and a per-container premium until the outstanding balance was paid. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶15.

On July 7, 2022, Pian reiterated SFI’s refusal to release any of the containers it was withholding unless WT23 paid all outstanding balances owed and advised that it would no longer pay the fees and storage costs of WT23’s containers and the storage facility would auction off the contents of those containers. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶16, Ex. D. Pian further advised Kouyoumjan that SFI had unilaterally and without prior notice transferred some of WT23’s containers to the Port of Long Beach and the Federal Maritime Commission (“FMC”) for storage resulting in demurrage and detention charges (“D&D Charges”) of several thousands of dollars per container per month. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶17.

In total, SFI withheld a total of 32 containers that WT23 needed to fulfill third-party retailer clients with a July 2022 deadline. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶18. The cost of the goods consists of the follwoing: (1) the manufacturer price to WT23; (2) the shipping costs to bring the goods to the United States; and (3) the royalties owed for the goods. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶18. WT23 paid its manufacturer a total of $987,590.02 for the goods, SFI charged $250,200.50, and WT23 paid royalties of $158,014.40. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶18. WT23’s total cost of the goods in the 32 disputed containers is $1,395,774.92. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶18, Ex. E. The wholesale value of these goods -- the amount retailers are willing to pay WT23 -- is $3,489,512.25. Kouyoumjan Decl., ¶18.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant SFI applies for a right to attach order against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant WT23 in the amount of $1,559,863.69.

With inapplicable exceptions, a supporting memorandum of points and authorities is required for a motion in any law and motion matter. CRC 3.1113(d). An application for an order for the right to attach property is a law and motion matter. CRC 3.1103(a)(2). SFI failed to file a memorandum of points and authorities and its application is denied for this reason.