Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 23AHCP00275, Date: 2023-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCP00275, Date: 2023-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Shanghai Tongsheng Investment Co., Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) applies for a Right to Attach Order and order issuing a writ of attachment against defendant Yu Yunxin (“Defendant”). The application is not opposed by Defendant, who is self-represented. The application cannot be granted at this time, however, due to several procedural and evidentiary errors.

First, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 484.040, all of the following must be served on Defendant at the times prescribed by section 1005(b): (1) a copy of the summons and complaint, (2) a notice of application and hearing, and (3) a copy of the application and of any affidavit in support of the application. Here, the proof of service does not show that a copy of the summons and complaint was sent to Defendant. Additionally, the proof of service shows that the place of mailing is outside of California, therefore notice must include 16 court days as well as 20 calendar days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b); see also Code Civ. Proc., § 684.120, subd. (b).) The documents were served by mail on December 22, 2023, which is a week after it should have been initially mailed out.

Second, the declarations submitted in support of this application are not properly executed. If a declaration is executed outside California, the certification must be made “under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2015.5.) The declaration of Ronging Wu, whom the Court notes is not yet admitted to practice in California PHV, is not executed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California. Furthermore, Fengquan Li certifies the English translations of the attached documents by stating that the translator is “competent” in Mandarin and that they have translated the documents to the best of their ability into English. Li does not state that Li is a certified interpreter or set forth facts under penalty of perjury showing that Li is a “qualified interpreter.” (CRC 3.1110, subd. (g) [all exhibits written in a foreign language to be accompanied by an English translation, “certified under oath by a qualified interpreter.”]) Defendant did not oppose or object to the contents of the translation. However, at the very least, the attorney’s declaration supporting the application should be properly executed.

Third, Plaintiff submitted a proposed order on Judicial Council Form AT-125 (which is for ex parte applications), instead of AT-120 (which is for noticed hearings).

Given these deficiencies, the Court continues the hearing to March 19, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. so that Plaintiff may submit revised declarations and a proposed order and give the amount of notice that is required by statute. (Code Civ. Proc. 484.080.)

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.