17-CIV-02547 DERRICK BURNS, ET AL. VS. SUNEET SINGAL, ET AL.

DERRICK BURNS SUNEET SINGAL
ADAM M. FOREST

WRIT OF ATTACHMENT TENTATIVE RULING:

Per Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 483.010 et. seq., Plaintiffs Derrick Burns’ and Vince Nakayama’s unopposed Application for a Right to Attach Order and a Prejudgment Writ of Attachment is GRANTED as to Defendant Suneet Singal in the amount of $250,000. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Application satisfies the requirements of Sect. 483.010(a), namely, (1) the claim upon which the attachment is based is one upon which an attachment may be issued (i.e., Defendant Singal’s alleged breach of the Promissory Note and Pledge Agreement), (2) that Plaintiffs have established the probable validity of their breach of contract claim (see Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 481.190, “more probable than not…”), (3) the attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery on the claim upon which the attachment is based, and (4) the amount to be secured is greater than zero ($250,000). Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 483.090(a). For purposes of this motion only, the Court finds it is more likely than not (Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 481.190) that Plaintiffs will prevail on their breach of contract claim. The Court also finds that irreparable injury could result to Plaintiffs absent attachment, in that there is a danger the property sought to be attached would be concealed, substantially impaired in value, and/or made unavailable to levy.

This Order is contingent on Plaintiffs first filing an undertaking in the amount of $10,000 (Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 484.090; 489.210; 489.220), and submitting a completed Form AT-120 (“Right to Attach Order After Hearing and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment”) for the Court’s signature. The Form AT-120 shall be consistent with this Order. For each item of Defendant Singal’s property Plaintiffs seek to attach, the Form AT-120 shall identify the applicable subsection of Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 487.010 authorizing attachment of each specific item of property.

Given the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ related request for a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) is DENIED AS MOOT. A TPO generally serves to maintain the status quo pending a noticed hearing on issuance of the Writ of Attachment.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.