Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 20STCV41499, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41499    Hearing Date: April 23, 2024    Dept: 82

Horizon Mesa LLC v. White Lily Builders, Group, Inc., et al.

Case No. 20STCV41499

Order on Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time/Advance Hearing

The court issued the following order on Monday, April 22, 2024.  Therefore, the hearing is off-calendar.

Plaintiff Horizon Mesa LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an ex parte application to shorten time and advance the hearing on Plaintiff’s application for a writ of attachment.  The basis of Plaintiff’s ex parte application is as follows: “Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant will not be able to satisfy the judgment in this matter based upon the investigation into Defendant’s litigation history and that there is already at least one secured creditor against Defendant inferring that Defendant generally does not pay its debts.”  (Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application, p. 6:4-8.)  In Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration, he identifies a series of other lawsuits and states: “In addition to these prior lawsuits and secured creditor actions, I believe that without this writ of attachment, Defendant will do everything possible to prevent Plaintiff from seeking Defendant’s assets to satisfy a judgment against it.  There is already one secured creditor against Defendant and upon information and belief there will be others.  For these reasons it is imperative that Plaintiff obtain a pre-judgment writ of attachment against Defendant.”  (Declaration of Sean Dowsing, ¶ 13.) 

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 166(a)(1), the court declines to hold a hearing on this ex parte application to shorten time and advance the hearing on Plaintiff’s application for a writ of attachment, set for July 17, 2024.  Plaintiff received the first available hearing date for its application for a writ of attachment, and Plaintiff articulates no good cause to advance this hearing date.  This case was filed on October 29, 2020, and has been pending for approximately three-and-one-half years, affording Plaintiff’s counsel ample opportunity to seek a writ of attachment.  The other lawsuits referenced by Plaintiff’s counsel were filed between 2020 and 2022.  Moreover, Plaintiff’s counsel advances no evidence that Defendants are concealing assets or would not satisfy any judgment, relying entirely on speculation that Defendant “generally does not pay its debts.”  Even if true, Plaintiff’s counsel provides no basis to “jump the line” with respect to other potential creditors.  Simply, if the court heard Plaintiff’s application for a writ of attachment on an emergency basis, it would have to do so in countless civil cases in which the defendant is subject to other lawsuits and/or has unsatisfied judgments/liabilities.  The court need not reach Defendants’ counsel’s argument that she requires additional discovery in order to oppose the application for the writ of attachment.    

Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s ex parte application is denied.  The court’s clerk shall provide notice.