Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case Number: 23STCV24556, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case: 23STCV24556, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff, Karmjeet Chhina as Trustee of the Autar S. Chhina & Karmjeet K. Chhina Revocable Trust dated November 22, 1996, brings a single application for four writs of attachment against Defendants, Tina Howland Chhina, Raj Chhina, Tina Marie Howland as Trustee under the Rajdeept Singh Chhina and Tina Marie Howland Living Trust dated July 10, 2007, and Rajdeep Singh Chhina as Trustee under the Rajdeept Singh Chhina and Tina Marie Howland Living Trust dated July 10, 2007.

Defendant Tina Howland in her individual capacity and in her capacity as trustee opposes the application. (The court entered a default against Defendant Rajdeep Singh Chinna as trustee on February 13, 2024.)

The Court shall issue a right to attach order if the Court finds all of the following:

(1) The claim upon which the attachment is based is one upon which an attachment may be issued.

(2) The plaintiff has established the probable validity of the claim upon which the attachment is based.

(3) The attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery on the claim upon which the attachment is based.

An application for the attachment of property is a law and motion matter. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1103, subd. (a)(2). A motion “must consist of at least the following: (1) A notice of hearing on the motion; (2) The motion itself; and (3) A memorandum in support of the motion or demurrer.” (Id. at Rule 3.112, subd. (a).) The California Rules of Court do not excuse the submission of a memorandum of points and authorities with an application for a writ of attachment. (Id. at Rule 3.1114, subd. (a) [motions for which memo not required].)

“A party filing a motion, except for a motion listed in rule 3.114, must serve and file a supporting memorandum. The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion . . . is not meritorious and cause for its denial . . . .” (Id. at Rule 3.113, subd. (a).) A memorandum “must contain a statement of the facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” (Id. at subd. (b).)

Plaintiff’s application is incomplete and does not comply with the law. First, Plaintiff failed to file any affidavit “showing that the plaintiff on the facts presented would be entitled to a judgment on the claim upon which the attachment is based.”[1] (Code Civ. Proc., § 484.030.) The court could locate no evidence in the electronic file in support of the application. Also, as the complaint is unverified, the complaint does not constitute evidence in support of the application.

Second, Plaintiff did not submit any memorandum in support of the application. Plaintiff has provided no statement of the law and no legal analysis in support of his application. Accordingly, as Plaintiff has provided no legal analysis of its legal theory (i.e., the elements of a breach of contract and the evidence supporting such a claim) through a memorandum, the court treats the omission as an admission by Plaintiff that the application is not meritorious and as the basis for denying the application.

Given the defective nature of Plaintiff’s moving papers, Plaintiff failed to meet his burden on the application. The court therefore need not (and has not) considered the opposition.

Finally, the court notes Plaintiff filed a single application for four defendants. The optional use judicial counsel form is intended for a single defendant. While Plaintiff modified the application at paragraph 2 to indicate multiple defendants, no other provision in the application has been modified for multiple defendants creating ambiguity within the application and the allegations about the defendants.

Based on the foregoing, the applications for writs of attachment are denied without prejudice.

[1] The application indicates a paragraph 7 that an affidavit is attached. The application has no attachment. In addition, Plaintiff did not separately file an affidavit at the time he filed his application.