Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 24PSCV01460, Date: 2024-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV01460, Date: 2024-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV01460 Hearing Date: August 19, 2024 Dept: G

Plaintiff Trebar Financial Services, Inc.’s Application for a Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of a Writ of Attachment against Defendant Diwan Transport, Inc.

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

Plaintiff Trebar Financial Services, Inc.’s Application for a Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of a Writ of Attachment against Defendant Baljit Singh Khinda

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

Plaintiff Trebar Financial Services, Inc.’s Application for a Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of a Writ of Attachment against Defendant Narinder Singh

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

Plaintiff Trebar Financial Services, Inc.’s Application for a Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of a Writ of Attachment against Defendant Tajinder P. Kaur

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

Plaintiff Trebar Financial Services, Inc.’s Application for a Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of a Writ of Attachment against Defendant Sukhraj Singh

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Trebar Financial Services, Inc.’s Application for a Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of a Writ of Attachment against Defendant Diwan Transport, Inc. is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $95,118.76.

Plaintiff Trebar Financial Services, Inc.’s Application for a Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of a Writ of Attachment against Defendant Baljit Singh Khinda is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $95,118.76.

Plaintiff Trebar Financial Services, Inc.’s Application for a Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of a Writ of Attachment against Defendant Narinder Singh is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $95,118.76.

Plaintiff Trebar Financial Services, Inc.’s Application for a Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of a Writ of Attachment against Defendant Tajinder P. Kaur is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $95,118.76.

Plaintiff Trebar Financial Services, Inc.’s Application for a Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of a Writ of Attachment against Defendant Sukhraj Singh is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $95,118.76.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract action arising from an equipment financing agreement. In May 2019, Plaintiff Trebar Financial Services, Inc. (Trebar) entered into a written equipment financing agreement with Defendant Diwan Transport, Inc. (Diwan Transport) in which Trebar agreed to provide $123,569.00 in financing for a 2020 Freightliner. In support of the agreement, Defendants Baljit Singh Khinda, Narinder Singh, Tajinder P. Kaur, and Sukhraj Singh (collectively, the Singhs) executed personal guaranties. In August 2023, Diwan Transport allegedly breached the agreement by failing to make payments due.

On May 7, 2024, Trebar filed a complaint against Diwan Transport, the Singhs, and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of promissory note, (2) breach of guaranty, and (3) account stated.

On May 14, 2024, Trebar filed the present applications. A hearing on Trebar’s applications has been set for August 19, 2024.

ANALYSIS

Trebar applies for writs of attachment against Diwan Transport and the Singhs. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Trebar’s applications.

Legal Standard

Attachment is proper where: (1) “[t]he claim is one upon which an attachment may be issued;” (2) “plaintiff has established the probable validity of the claim upon which the attachment is based;” (3) “[t]he attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery on the claim upon which the attachment is based;” and (4) “[t]he amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 480.090, subd. (a); see also Bank of America v. Salinas Nissan, Inc. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 260, 271 (Salinas Nissan) [party pursuing attachment remedy carries burden of establishing grounds justifying attachment, including presenting facts that show probable validity of underlying claim].)¿ The court may issue an attachment on a claim for money arising under contract, so long as the amount claimed by the party seeking attachment is reasonably ascertainable in an amount greater than $500.00. (Code Civ. Proc., § 483.010, subd. (a).)

“Probable validity means that ‘more likely than not’ the plaintiff will obtain a judgment on that claim.” (Santa Clara Waste Water Co. v. Allied World National Assurance Co. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 881, 885, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 481.190.) Plaintiff’s application must “be supported by an affidavit or declaration showing that the applicant, on the facts presented, would be entitled to a judgment on the claim upon which the attachment is based.” (Lydig Construction, Inc. v. Martinez Steel Corp. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 937, 944, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 484.030.) The affidavits must set forth facts with particularity and a verified complaint may be utilized in lieu of such affidavits. (Code Civ. Proc., § 482.040.) Furthermore, any documentary evidence must be presented in admissible form. (Id., at p. 944.)

Discussion

In this case, attachment is proper because Trebar’s claims involve a contract or a written agreement. (See Klein v. Benaron (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 607, 610.) Additionally, Trebar seeks to secure $96,473.36 which is an amount greater than zero and for the purposes of recovering on the claims of breach of contract, breach of guaranty, and account stated. Thus, the court now considers whether Trebar has established the probable validity of Trebar’s claims.

Here, Trebar argues it is entitled to $92,897.71 for Diwan Transport’s breach of contract in failing to make payments pursuant to their financing agreement. (Barrett Decl., ¶ 11.) To establish a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must be able to establish “(1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff.” (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.)

In this case, Trebar alleges Diwan Transport entered into a contract in the form of a financing agreement on May 7, 2019. (Barrett Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 1.) According to the agreement, Trebar agreed to provide financing for a 2020 Freightliner in exchange for Diwan Transport making sixty (60) monthly payments of $2,578.49. (Barrett Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 1.) In support of the agreement, the Singhs executed personal guaranties. (Barrett Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 2.) Trebar alleges Trebar performed pursuant to the agreement. (Barrett Decl., ¶ 11.) Further, Trebar alleges Diwan Transport breached the agreement on August 30, 2023 by failing to make monthly payments. (Barrett Decl., ¶ 7.) Due to Diwan Transport’s breach, Trebar alleges they are damaged in the amount of $92,897.71, including $37,137.90 in payments due and $51,758.01 in collection costs. (Barrett Decl., ¶ 9-11.) Based on the allegations of Trebar’s declaration, the court finds Trebar has established the probable validity of Trebar’s breach of contract claims. But the court notes the sum of the payments due and collection costs only amounts to $88,895.01.

Accordingly, Trebar’s applications for writs of attachment are GRANTED in the reduced amount of $95,118.76 that includes $2,800.80 in interest (10% of $88,895.01 divided by 365 = $24.3547972603 per diem multiplied by 115 days (4/26/2024 – 8/19/2024)), $2,747.95 in attorney fees, and $675.00 in costs.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Trebar’s applications for writs of attachment against Diwan Transport and the Singhs are GRANTED in the reduced amount of $95,118.76.