What is Writ of Attachment

Useful Rulings on Application for Right to Attach Order & Writ of Attachment

Recent Rulings on Application for Right to Attach Order & Writ of Attachment

SQI DIAGNOSTICS SYSTEMS, INC. V. PREDICTIVE HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS, INC.

Plaintiff SQI Diagnostics, Inc.’s application for right to attach order in the amount of $410,000 and writ of attachment against Defendant Predictive Health Diagnostics, Inc. is granted. Upon the filing of a complaint or at any time thereafter, the plaintiff may apply for a right to attach order and writ of attachment by filing an application for the order and writ with the court in which the action is brought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 484.010.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

JEREZ VS LIGHTHOUSE STRATEGIES LLC

Plaintiff Victor Jerez's application for right to attach order and issuance of writ of attachment is denied. Plaintiff has not established the probable validity of the claim. Plaintiff's reliance on a separately filed motion is inappropriate.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MALIBU FISH GRILL 1, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS SARKIS DERSARKISSIAN

., 20STCV21531 Tentative decision on application for right to attach order: granted Plaintiff Malibu Fish Grill 1, Inc. (“Malibu”) applies for a right to attach order against Defendant Sarkis Der Sarkissian (“Der Sarkissian”) in the amount of $285,000. The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition,[1] and reply, and renders the following tentative decision. A. Statement of the Case 1.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

STEVEN JONES V. GARY CONWAY, ET AL.

On July 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed an application for right to attach order and an order for the issuance of a writ of attachment against Defendants. (Code Civ. Proc., § 484.010.) Plaintiff seeks the attachment to recover $262,000 in debt he alleges he is owed under the Contract. Plaintiff argues he is concerned that Defendants have sold and liquidated their “largest asset.” So far as the Court can tell Plaintiff does not identify what this asset is. (Jones Decl., ¶ 2.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA VS ENERGY ENTERPRISES USA INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

CASE NO: 20VECV00135 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER AND WRIT OF ATTACHMENT Dept. T 8:30 a.m. September 8, 2020 [TENTATIVE] ORDER: The Application for Right to Attach Order and Writ of Attachment is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to post a bond in the amount of $10,000 and serve/file Notice of Bond before attachment may occur.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MIDLAND STATES BANK VS. KODIAK

HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER FILED BY MIDLAND STATES BANK * TENTATIVE RULING: * Vacated by moving party.

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2020

RANCHO NUEVO HARVESTING, INC., ET AL V MELONCO, LLC

On August 10, 2020, defendants filed opposition to the application for right to attach order, also raising a claim of exemption for all property under section 730.010. Defendant also filed a declaration of Mr. Gurdeep Billan (Mr. Billan), a managing member of defendant, indicating that Melonco is not insolvent. According to Mr. Billan, “nothing could be farther from the truth.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

RE: APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER; ORDER FOR ISSUANCE

FILED ON 10/24/19 BY LISA ROYALS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances...

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

OCEAN TERMINAL SERVICES, INC. VS PASHA STEVEDORING & TERMINALS L.P., ET AL.

., 20STCV04623 Tentative decision on application for right to attach order: denied Plaintiff Ocean Terminal Services (“OTS”) applies for a right to attach order against Defendant Pasha Stevedoring & Terminals L.P. (“Pasha LP”) in the amount of $1,936,337.49. The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition[1], and reply, and renders the following tentative decision. A. Statement of the Case 1.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

REDDING VS. BOGUESS

Plaintiffs filed this application for right to attach order to secure recovery on their breach of contract claims against Defendant Nuance. The amount to be secured by the attachment is $1,388,070.65. Plaintiffs seek to attach all corporate property of Nuance Energy Group, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

BLACK BOX CREATIVE GROUP, LLC VS FICTION RIOT, LLC

., 20STCV23744 Tentative decision on application for right to attach order: granted Plaintiff Black Box Creative Group, LLC aka BLKBX Creative Group, LLC (“Black Box”) applies for a right to attach order against Defendant Fiction Riot, LLC aka Ficto (“Ficto”) in the amount of $265,110.27. The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition,[1] and reply, and renders the following tentative decision. A. Statement of the Case 1.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

660 BVD LLC V. WILLIAM SCOTT GRIFFITHS

On July 1, 2019, the court granted 660 BVD’s application for right to attach order against Griffiths in the amount of $528,047.32. A writ of attachment was thereafter issued against Griffiths’s real property in Laguna Niguel, California after 660 BVD posted an undertaking in the amount of $10,000. 660 BVD now moves the court for an order granting summary judgment on its sole cause of action against Griffiths for breach of guaranty. There is no filed opposition to the motion.

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

JONES VS. TZEN-WEN

HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER & WRIT FILED BY PLAINTIFF * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiffs’ application for a right-to-attach order against the Hites defendants is denied. Indeed, it borders on harassment, consistent with the overly aggressive manner in which plaintiffs have litigated this case heretofore. The heart of plaintiffs’ claims rests in tort. As plaintiffs recognize, however, an attachment can rest only on a claim sounding in express or implied contract.

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

KELSEY ULLRICH, TRUSTEE OF THE DENNIS L. ULLRICH SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUST ESTABLISHED JANUARY 9, 1992 FBO KELSEY ULLRICH, TRUSTEE OF THE DENNIS L. ULLRICH SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUST ESTABLISHED JANUARY 9, 1992 FBO KYLE ULLRICH VS MUGO

Plaintiff Ullrich’s Application for Right to Attach Order/Writ of Attachment 2. Status Conference No tentative will be posted in this matter.

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

CRESCENT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED VS. ERIC HARR, ET AL

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: 1) MOTION — FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT TO SET ASIDE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND FOR DAMAGES [DEFT] ERIC HARR 2) MOTION TO QUASH — THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT [DEFT] AHMAD ASHKAR 3) HEARING — ON APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER AND ORDER FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT [PLTF] CRESCENT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, A CORPORATION RULING PLEASE NOTE: THE AUGUST 18, 2020 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR FOR DEPT. A WILL BE CONDUCTED VIA ZOOM.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

GEORGE STEPHAN, ET AL. VS LISA ANN BARKETT, ET AL.

., 18STCV08722 Tentative decision on application for right to attach order: denied Plaintiffs George Stephan (“George”) and Debra Stephan (“Debra”) (collectively “the Stephans”) apply for a right to attach order against Defendant Lisa Ann Barkett (“Lisa”) in the amount of $4,241,360.44. The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition,[1] and reply,[2] and renders the following tentative decision. A. Statement of the Case 1.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

THE UNDERGROUND DANCE CENTRE LA LLC VS 607 WESTKNOLL, LLC (AKA 607 WEST KNOLL, LLC)

., 19STCV44773 Tentative decision on application for right to attach order: denied Plaintiff the Underground Dance Centre LA, LLC (“Underground”) applies for a right to attach order against Defendant 607 Westknoll, LLC (“Westknoll”) in the amount of $126,400. The court has read and considered the moving papers[1] and opposition,[2] (no reply was filed), and renders the following tentative decision. A. Statement of the Case 1.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC. V. VALLEY FARM SUPPLY INC.

Nature of Proceedings: Application for Right to Attach Order and Writ of Attachment Opposition to this application has not yet been received and is not due until August 5, 2020. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 484.060.) Plaintiff may file and serve a reply to defendant's opposition 2 court days before the hearing date. (Code Civ. Proc. § 484.060, subd. (c).) Although statutorily permitted, it is unlikely the court will be ready to resolve this fact intensive inquiry in the allotted time.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC. V. VALLEY FARM SUPPLY INC.

Nature of Proceedings: Application for Right to Attach Order and Writ of Attachment Opposition to this application has not yet been received and is not due until August 5, 2020. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 484.060.) Plaintiff may file and serve a reply to defendant's opposition 2 court days before the hearing date. (Code Civ. Proc. § 484.060, subd. (c).) Although statutorily permitted, it is unlikely the court will be ready to resolve this fact intensive inquiry in the allotted time.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

ROCKVIEW DAIRIES, INC. VS B & D DISTRIBUTING, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

] #3 TENTATIVE ORDER Plaintiff Rockview Dairies, Inc.’s unopposed application for right to attach order is GRANTED. The amount of the writ is $1,338,652.50, and an undertaking of $10,000 is ordered as provided for by statute. (CCP § 489.220.) Moving Party to give NOTICE. Plaintiff B&R Textiles, Inc. applies for a writ of attachment in the sum of $1,338.652.50.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MUFG UNION BANK NA VS BLU HEATING & AIR INC

Plaintiff's unopposed Application for Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment is GRANTED. (ROA 15.) Plaintiff's requests for judicial notice are granted. (ROA 30; Evid. Code § 452.) Plaintiff is to submit a revised Right to Attach Order with the following changes: 1) In Section 1(a), the judge shall be identified as Judge Jeffrey Barton and the hearing date shall be identified as August 7, 2020. 2) In Section 3(c), the amount of the undertaking shall be $10,000.00.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ANTONIA SALAZAR, ET AL. VS HENG LU, ET AL.

Lu, et al. (20PSCV00073) _____________________________________________ Plaintiffs Antonia Salazar’s and Edward Salazar’s APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER AND ORDER FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT AFTER HEARING Responding Party: Defendants, Heng Lu; Sino-American Capital, LLC; Hung Ngo and ETop Real Estate Tentative Ruling Plaintiffs Antonia Salazar’s and Edward Salazar’s Application for Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment After Hearing

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

GROTH VS. GILAD

HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER FILED 06-17-2020 BY WILLIAM GROTH * TENTATIVE RULING: * Please see Line 1.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

GROTH VS. GILAD

HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER RE AMI GILAD FILED 06-17-20 BY WILLIAM GROTH * TENTATIVE RULING: * Before the Court are competing motions. Defendant Roy Gilad moves for restitution following an appellate court reversal of a judgment entered for the plaintiffs, William Groth and Groth Holdings. Defendant Ami Gilad joins in the motion for restitution. Plaintiff Groth has also applied for orders to attach, which both the Gilads oppose.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 36     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.