Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 24SMCV04598, Date: 2025-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV04598    Hearing Date: April 23, 2025    Dept: I

Plaintiff sues defendant for a breach of contract and now seeks a writ of attachment.  There is no opposition.

The complaint alleges that defendant leased space.  The law firm was the lessee and Setareh was a guarantor.  The lease allegedly expired in June 2024, but defendants held over for three months.  According to plaintiff, defendants owe about $74,000 in rent plus fees.

To obtain the writ, plaintiff must show that the action stems from a breach of contract (which it does), exceeds $500 in dispute (which it does), is for an amount that is fixed or readily ascertainable, that plaintiff is likely to prevail, and that the obligations arise from the defendant’s business.  The claim here arises out of the lease and amendment, and thus are readily ascertainable in the first instance.  However, plaintiff fails to account for the issues raised in the cross-complaint.  In the cross action, defendant contends that certain aspects of the rent were overstated, including certain CAM charges and other things.  Where there is a cross action, the court will ultimately strike a balance and issue a net judgment. 

Plaintiff, on Friday, filed a reply that was just uploaded this morning.  It is a reply to an opposition that the court has not seen. 

Given that, the court simply is not in a position to rule at this time.  The matter will be CONTINUED.  The court will discuss the date with the parties.  The court anticipates no further briefing.