Case Number: 19SMCV00209 Hearing Date: September 24, 2019 Dept: P

TENTATIVE RULING

Cislo & Thomas, LLP v. Miramar Brands Group, Inc. Case No.: 19SMCV00209

Motion: Plaintiff’s Application for Writ of Attachment

Hearing Date: 9/24/2019

Plaintiff and defendant executed a retainer agreement under which plaintiff would provide legal services to defendant. Plaintiff alleges defendant failed to pay. Plaintiff applies for a writ of attachment of $489,140.20, representing alleged unpaid bills, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.

A party may apply for a prejudgment writ of attachment based on a commercial claim arising out of a contract or agreement where the total amount demanded is $500 or more. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §483.010. The application will be granted if the plaintiff establishes the probable validity of the claim, the attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery of the claim, and the property to be attached is not exempt. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §484.090. A claim has probable validity if “it is more likely than not that the Plaintiff will obtain a judgment against the Defendant on that claim.” Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §481.190.

Plaintiff’s application is supported by a declaration, claiming defendant failed to pay for legal services. Cislo Decl. at pgs. 2-3. Defendant’s founder/CEO Ascher’s declaration states the invoices were inflated and potentially fraudulent, and defendant has paid the actual value of legal services rendered. Opp. at pgs. 12-14. In reply, plaintiff objects that Ascher’s declaration represents an attempt to offer an unqualified expert opinion. Reply at pgs. 2-3.

Ascher’s declaration is not presented as “expert witness” testimony. It is simply Ascher’s opinion “[r]ationally based on [his] perception” and his review of invoices sent to his company; this is permissible under Cal. Evid. Code §800. No special expertise is required for him to opine that plaintiff inflated claimed hours. Defendant admits it owes plaintiff a “potential unpaid balance of $75,660.47,” and does not provide any argument or evidence as to why it is not required to pay that amount. The “probable validity” of plaintiff’s claim is established in the amount of $75,660.47. The court notes plaintiff did not provide to the court any detailed billing, simply a table of hours claimed.

GRANTED in the amount of $75,660.47. Plaintiff to post an undertaking for $10,000.00.