Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2023-00045221-CU-FR-CTL, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 11, 2024

01/12/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Fraud Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00045221-CU-FR-CTL WESTCOTT ENTERPRISES INC VS AMIRASLANI [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 12/11/2023

The Applications (ROA # 13, 14, 27, 29) of Plaintiff Westcott Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Westcott Mazda ('Plaintiff' or 'Westcott') for a Right to Attach Order and Issuance of a Writ of Attachment and Temporary Protective Order to Defendants Kasra Amiraslani and Stacey Johnson ('Defendants'), is DENIED.

The Temporary Protective Order issued on November 21, 2023 is dissolved as of the date of this hearing.

The ruling is based on the analysis set forth below.

Initially, the Court finds that the opposition papers were not late filed. See Code Civ. Proc. 484.050(e) ('If the defendant desires to oppose the issuance of the order, the defendant shall file with the court and serve on the plaintiff a notice of opposition and supporting affidavit as required by Section 484.060 not later than five court days prior to the date set for hearing.').

The Court also notes that both the Notice of Application (ROA # 29) and the claim of exemption / notice of opposition (ROA # 33) lists Defendant Realty Literacy Group, LLC as a party against which Plaintiff seeks a writ of attachment. However, this entity is not listed in either Application for a right to attach order. As a result, this ruling does not address Defendant Realty Literacy Group, LLC.

'Except as otherwise provided by statute, an 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) exclusive of costs, interest and attorney's fees.' Code Civ. Proc. 483.010(a).

As the attachment procedures are purely the creation of the Legislature, the statute is subject to strict construction. Nakasone v. Randall (1982) 129 Cal. App. 3d 757, 761.

The availability of prejudgment attachment is limited to specific types of claims. Id. There are four restrictions on the kinds of actions in which attachment is authorized: (1) the action must be on a claim for money based on a contract; (2) the total amount of the claim must be a fixed or readily ascertainable amount not less than $500; (3) the claim must not be secured or the security must be valueless; and (4) if the action is against an individual, an attachment may be issued only on a claim which arises out of the conduct by the individual of a trade, business, or profession. Id. at 761, 762.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3070845  11 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  WESTCOTT ENTERPRISES INC VS AMIRASLANI [IMAGED]  37-2023-00045221-CU-FR-CTL Plaintiff must establish 'the probable validity of the claim upon which the attachment is based.' Code Civ. Proc. 484.090(a)(2).

In determining the probable validity of a claim, the Court must consider the relative merits of the positions of the respective parties and make a determination of the probable outcome of the litigation.

Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal. App. 3d 1110, 1120.

In support of this claim, Plaintiff submits the declaration of Majid Kamfiroozie, along with voluminous attached exhibits. The opposition submits the declarations of Defendants Kasra Amiraslani and Stacey Johnson, as well as attached exhibits. After reviewing this evidence, the Court finds Plaintiff has not established the probable validity of this claim. Instead, it appears equally probable that Plaintiff and Defendants were jointly involved in questionable financial practices and transactions.

It strains credibility that missing cash totaling more than $220,000, the theft of nine vehicles, more than $551,000 in unauthorized disbursements to RLG, and unauthorized personal checks totaling in excess of $283,000, all occurring over a six-year period, could have continued, unnoticed, from a single car dealership. It seems equally plausible (as stated in Defendants' declarations) that Kamfiroozie authorized many of these transactions.

The Applications are denied on this basis and the Court does not address Defendants' other arguments.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3070845  11