Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 24STCV16540, Date: 2025-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV16540    Hearing Date: March 7, 2025    Dept: 82

R Chapter 3, LLC, et al.                                           Case No. 24STCV16540

v.                                                                     Hearing: March 7, 2025

                                                                        Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse

                                                                                    Department: 82                                                  Wilcox Wilcox, LLC, et al.                                              Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch

[Tentative] Order Denying Application for Writs of Attachment

Plaintiffs R Chapter 3, LLC; J & J 7880, LLC; and Opus 1645, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move for writs of attachment against Defendants Wilcox Wilcox, LLC and Ploenpidh Houston (collectively, “Defendants”).  “The Attachment Law statutes are subject to strict construction.” (Epstein v. Abrams (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1168.) 

Code of Civil Procedure sections 484.020 and 484.050 require that the party seeking attachment serve on the defendant a notice that includes the time and date of the hearing, among other information, and an application that provides various statements.[1]  Here, there are several deficiencies in the notice and application.  The notice on Judicial Council form AT-115 only lists Defendant Wilcox Wilcox, LLC in paragraph 1, not Defendant Houston.  The application on Judicial Council form AT-105 only lists Defendant Wilcox Wilcox, LLC in paragraph 2, not Defendant Houston, and requests an attachment totaling only $194,900.58 in paragraph 8 (not the $257,305.58 requested in the memorandum).[2]  Also, in paragraph 9 of form AT-105, Plaintiff did not specify the type of property sought to be attached for Defendant Houston.  In addition, Plaintiffs did not sign the declaration at the bottom of form AT-105.

The court also has concerns with respect to Plaintiffs’ theory against Ploenpidh Houston, who was the guarantor of the lease executed by Wilcox Wilcox, LLC.  “If the action is against a defendant who is a natural person, an attachment may be issued only on a claim which arises out of the conduct by the defendant of a trade, business, or profession.”  (Code Civ. Proc.

§ 483.010(c).)  The court must “exercise [its] judgment on a case-to-case basis to determine whether the activity of the defendant with respect either (1) to the extension of credit generally, or (2) to the business of the primary obligor is such as to justify the conclusion that the guarantee of the primary obligor’s debt sued upon is part and parcel of an activity which occupies the time, attention and effort of the guarantor for the purpose of livelihood or profit on a continuing basis.”  (Advance Transformer Co. v. Superior Court (1974) 44 Cal.App.3d 127, 144.)  Plaintiffs fail to address this requirement.  (See Plaintiff’s Memorandum 5-11.)  “When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived.”  (Nelson v. Avondale HOA (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862-863; accord Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 934 [Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113 “rests on a policy-based allocation of resources, preventing the trial court from being cast as a tacit advocate for the moving party’s theories”].) 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ application for writs of attachment is denied without prejudice.  Plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of service with the court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: March 7, 2025                                                 ______________________

                                                                                    Stephen I. Goorvitch

                                                                                    Superior Court Judge