Judge: William D. Claster, Case: 21-01217175, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

1. Plaintiffs Pure Health & Beauty LLC,  Shea Health LLC, Harbor Health LLC, Beauty Contour LLC, Organic Virtue LLC, Paragon Wellness LLC, Beverly Beauty LLC, Health Daily LLC, New Times Glamour LLC, Hollywood Beauty LLC, Caroll Health LLC, Beautorama Health LLC, Beautyspot Wellness LLC, Pacific Products LLC, and Venice Wellness LLC's  Application for Right to Attach Order/Writ of Attachment  ROA 167

Plaintiffs’ application for a right to attach order and order for issuance of writ of attachment is CONTINUED to January 13, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. to permit the supplemental briefing described below. The status conference scheduled for December 9, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. will remain on calendar.

Plaintiffs seek a writ of attachment to secure $857,202.43 they contend is due and owing under contracts between the parties.  At the time this motion was filed, this case was in active litigation before the Court.  However, Defendant Commercial Bank of California moved to compel individual arbitration of each Plaintiff’s claims.  Plaintiffs did not oppose the motion to compel arbitration, provided the Court would hear this attachment motion.  Accordingly, the Court granted the motion to compel arbitration and stayed all proceedings except this motion.  (See ROA 228.)

As the Court noted in that ruling, the California Arbitration Act allows a court to issue a writ of attachment or other provisional remedies even if an arbitration is pending.  Such a request may based “only upon the ground that the award to which the applicant may be entitled may be rendered ineffectual without provisional relief.”  (CCP § 1281.8(b).)  The requirement of ineffectual relief is in addition to whatever common law or statutory requirements exist for the remedy at issue.  (See California Retail Portfolio Fund GMBH & Co. KG v. Hopkins Real Estate Group (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.)

Plaintiffs have put on no evidence or argument going to the ineffectual relief issue.  It appears from the Court’s review that none of the parties’ papers, either supporting or in opposition, mentions CCP § 1281.8 at all.  This is unsurprising, because the ineffectual relief issue was first raised in CBCal’s reply in support of its motion to compel arbitration, filed long after briefing was complete on this motion. 

To address this additional requirement, Plaintiffs, CBCal, and the Electronic Commerce parties are ordered to file supplemental briefs discussing only the ineffectual relief issue.   Plaintiffs’ brief, which should address ineffectual relief as to both CBCal and Electronic Commerce, is limited to eight pages (excluding any supporting evidence) and must be filed on or before December 30, 2022.  CBCal’s and Electronic Commerce’s briefs should address only ineffectual relief as to themselves.  Those briefs are limited to five pages apiece (excluding any supporting evidence) and must be filed on or before January 6, 2023.