Case Number: 19BBCV00538 Hearing Date: February 14, 2020 Dept: A

Korman v United Language Group

Motion for Writ of Attachment

Calendar:

01

Case No.:

19BBCV00538

Hearing Date:

February 14, 2020

Action Filed:

June 19, 2019

Trial Date:

Not Set

MP:

Plaintiffs Yeun Korman, Yong Korman, Claudio Federico, Alen Keshishyan and Eugene Du

RP:

Defendants United Language Group, Inc. and Language Select, LLC

ALLEGATIONS:

The instant action arises from Plaintiffs Yeun Korman, Yong Korman, Claudio Federico, Alen Keshishyan and Eugene Du (the “Plaintiffs”) 2016 sale of their language translation company, Defendant Language Select, LLC (“Select”), to Defendants United Language Group, Inc. (“ULG”), United Language Group Holdings, LLC (“UL Holdings”), Douglas Bergeron (“Bergeron”), Kristen Giovanis (“Giovanis”), Scott M. Honour (“Honour”), Peter Offenhauser (“Offenhauser”), Michael Furey (“Furey”), and Marcy A. Haymaker (“Haymaker” and collectively the “Defendants”). Plaintiffs contends that they sold their equity in Select for $60,000,000.00, consisting of a Seller Note in the principal amount of $5,000,000.00, and certain shares. Following the sale, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants breached their contract under the Seller Note by failing to make timely interest payments in 2018, and, following a settlement agreement, breached the settlement agreement by failing to make timely interest payments.

Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint on June 19, 2019, and filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on October 30, 2019. The operative complaint alleges three causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Contract – Seller Note; (2) Breach of Contract – Settlement Agreement; and (3) Declaratory Relief.

PRESENTATION:

Plaintiffs moved for two writs of attachment on January 22, 2020. UGL and Select filed opposition on February 06, 2020. No reply briefs have been received.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiffs move to attach $5,300,000.00 in UGL assets.

Plaintiffs move to attach $5,300,000.00 in Select assets.

DISCUSSION:

Standard of Review – Code of Civ. Proc. §484.090 permits the Court to issue a writ of attachment after finding the following: (1) The claim is one upon which an attachment may be issued; (2) Plaintiff has established the probable validity of the claim upon which the attachment is based; (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 by the attachment is greater than zero. Under Code of Civ. Proc. §483.010, a claim is “one upon which an attachment may be issued” in the following instances: (1) The case arises from a claim or claims for money; (2) Each claim for money is based upon a contract, express or implied; and (3) The total amount of the claim or claims is a fixed or readily ascertainable amount not less than $500.

Further, in determining the amount at issue for a writ of attachment, the Court may look to Code of Civ. Proc. §483.015(a), which provides that it is (1) the amount of indebtedness claimed, and/or (2) any additional amount provided for, such as costs and attorney’s fees under Code of Civ. Proc. §482.110(a). The indebtedness, in turn, may be determined from “[t]he amount of any indebtedness of the plaintiff that the defendant has claimed in a cross-complaint file in the action if the defendant’s claim is one upon which an attachment could be issued.” Code of Civ. Proc. §483.015(b).

Finally, “[b]efore issuance of a writ of attachment … the plaintiff shall file an undertaking to pay the defendant any amount the defendant may recover for any wrongful attachment by the plaintiff in the action.” Code of Civ. Proc. §489.210. The amount for an undertaking, as provided by law, is $10,000.00, but may be increased upon objection to the undertaking if the Court determines that “the probable recovery for wrongful attachment exceeds the amount of the undertaking”. Code of Civ. Proc. §489.220.

On review of the moving papers, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not established the probable validity of the claims upon which the attachment is based. Specifically, UGL and Select have raised material issues of fact that put in contention Plaintiffs’ right to obtain the monies under the subordination agreements entered into by Plaintiffs, when there are senior lienholders who may be entitled to any attached monies before Plaintiffs. Further, the Court notes that the case is not yet at issue, as the FAC is scheduled for hearing on demurrer on March 06, 2020.

Accordingly, the motions are denied.

—

RULING: Deny

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Plaintiffs Yeun Korman, Yong Korman, Claudio Federico, Alen Keshishyan and Eugene Du’s Motions for Writs of Attachment came on regularly for hearing on February 14, 2020, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTIONS ARE DENIED.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE