Judge John C. Gastelum, Case 22-01286170 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 22-01286170, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Application for RTAO/WOM

Tentative Ruling: The Application for Right to Attach Order and Writ of Attachment filed by Plaintiff, Direct Home Delivery Service, Inc. dba Direct Transport on Defendant Dose International Group, Inc. dba Illuminart Group’s property to secure $25,000 is GRANTED.

Plaintiff seeks to secure an attachment against Defendant Dose International Group, Inc. dba Illuminart Group in the amount of $25,000, and thus, seeks to attach any property of a defendant who is not a natural person. (Application for Right to Attach Order, ¶ 8, ROA 20.)

Plaintiff submits the Declaration of Steve Washbon (“Washbon Decl.”), the President of Plaintiff, in support of the Application for Right to Attach Order and Writ of Attachment, which establishes the requisite factors to issue a Right to Attach Order and Writ of Attachment. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 483.010, 484.090.) The evidence establishes that Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim (1^st COA) for which the attachment is based is one upon which an attachment may be issued as it is a claim for money based on contract; is of a fixed or readily ascertainable amount of $25,000 which is unsecured; that the attachment is not sought for any purpose other than securing the creditor’s claim; that the amount secured by the attachment is greater than zero; and that the breach of contract claim is probably valid. (Washbon Decl., ¶¶ 2-8; Exs. A and B; ROA 15; Application, ¶ 4; ROA 20.)

Defendants argue the claim is not for a fixed or readily ascertainable amount and that Plaintiff has not met its burden to show the probable validity of its breach of contract claim, but present no admissible evidence to support that Defendants expended costs and expenses, and what or how much those costs and expenses were. Defendants’ opposition purports to attach various documents which are not authenticated and lack foundation, and are not supported by any declaration. Nor is there an explanation of what these documents entail. Consequently, they are not considered. Ultimately, Defendants fail to show that the claim is not for a fixed or readily ascertainable amount, or that Plaintiff has not met its burden of establishing the probable validity of its claim for breach of contract.

Plaintiff to file an undertaking in the amount of $10,000. ((Code Civ. Proc. §§ 484.370, 489.210, 489.220.)

Plaintiff to give notice.