Case Number: EC062283    Hearing Date: November 07, 2014    Dept: B

NOTICE: Department B will be dark on November 7, 2014. Please review the following tentative ruling. If you wish to have oral argument, please contact opposing counsel and agree upon one of the following dates for argument: November 21 or December 5. Then, please send an email to lmcfarlane@lacourt.org stating your case number, the agreed upon date for argument, and which party will give notice. The email must be received by 4:30 p.m. on November 7, 2014, or the Court’s tentative ruling will be the ruling and order of the Court. You may also send an email if you submit to the tentative ruling.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Application for Writ of Attachments
1. Writ of Attachment for $25,000 on property of Defendant, Vincent Messina
2. Writ of Attachment for $538,000 on property of Defendant, Velocity Regional Center

This case arises from the Plaintiffs’ claim that the Defendants fraudulent induced the Plaintiffs into agreements under which the Defendants agreed to assist the Plaintiff with obtaining permanent resident status through investments under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program.

Trial is set for June 8, 2015.

This hearing concerns the applications of Plaintiff, Mingqi Wang, for writs of attachment on the property of Defendants, Vincent Messina and Velocity Regional Center, LLC. The writ of attachment is a prejudgment remedy that will allow the Plaintiff to have a lien on the Defendants’ assets until a final adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims.

CCP section 484.090 permits the Court to issue a writ of attachment after finding the following:

1) the Plaintiff’s claim is one upon which an attachment may be issued.
2) the 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.

CCP section 483.010 permits an attachment to be issued only in the following cases:

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 five hundred dollars.

In support of its applications, the Plaintiff, Mingqi Wang, provides facts in his own declarations.

1. Request for Writ of Attachment against Vincent Messina

The Plaintiff claims that Vincent Messina breached a legal service agreement. Mr. Wang states in paragraph 7 that he entered into the agreement and that a copy is attached as exhibit B. Under the agreement, the Plaintiff agreed to pay $25,000 to the Defendant and the Defendant agreed to provide legal services to assist the Plaintiff with obtaining permanent resident status through the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program.

Mr. Wang states in paragraph 8 that he paid the $25,000 legal fee as part of a $63,000 payment made to Velocity Regional Center. This fact indicates that Mr. Wang made a payment to Velocity Regional Center. There is no evidence that Velocity Regional Center transferred the payment to Vincent Messina. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not established that Mr. Wang made the required payment of $25,000 to the Defendant, Vincent Messina.

Further, in the opposition papers, Vincent Messina provides facts in his own declaration to demonstrate that he did not receive the $25,000 payment from Mr. Wang or from Velocity Regional Center.

This review of the evidence in the Plaintiff’s papers and in the opposition papers of Vincent Messina reveal that the Plaintiff has not established the probable validity of his claim that the Defendant, Vincent Messina, breached the legal services agreement. Since this is required under CCP section 484.090 to obtain a writ of attachment, the Plaintiff’s application must be denied with respect to Vincent Messina.

2. Request for Writ of Attachment against Velocity Regional Center

The Plaintiff claims that Velocity Regional Center breached an Investment Commitment Agreement and Partnership Agreement. Mr. Wang states in paragraph 6 that he entered into an Investment Commitment Agreement and that a copy is attached as exhibit A. Mr. Wang states in paragraph 6 that he paid a syndication fee of $38,035 to Velocity Regional Center under this agreement.

In addition, Mr. Wang states in paragraph 7 that he entered into a Partnership Agreement and that a copy is attached as exhibit C. Under the agreements, Velocity Regional Center agreed to submit applications on the Plaintiff’s behalf to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.

In paragraph 11, Mr. Wang states that he paid $500,035 under the partnership agreement. In paragraph 14, Mr. Wang states that John Liddell, Chief Operating Office of Velocity Regional Center, advised Mr. Wang that the Defendant had not performed its duties by filing an I-526 petition needed to make the investment in the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program. Further, Mr. Liddell stated that the $500,000 investment would be returned. In paragraph 19, Mr. Wang states that neither the $500,000 investment nor the $38,035 syndication fee has been returned.

This evidence shows that Plaintiff has a claim for money based upon an express contract and that the amount owed is greater than $500. In addition, the Plaintiff’s evidence demonstrates the probable validity of his claim that the Defendant, Velocity Regional Center, breached the agreements with the evidence showing that the Defendant did not perform its duties under the agreements.

The Plaintiff’s application for the writ of attachment states in paragraph 4 that the attachment is not sought for any purpose other than to recover the claim. In addition, the amount sought is greater than $0, as shown by the Mr. Wang’s statement that the amount of his claim is $538,035. The Plaintiff seeks a writ of attachment for the amount of $538,000.

Defendant Velocity Regional Center filed no opposition to the Application. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s application satisfies the requirements of CCP section 484.090 because the Plaintiff has demonstrated that his claim is one upon which an attachment may be issued, that the Plaintiff’s claim has probable validity, that the attachments are sought only to recover the claim, and that the amount to be secured by the attachments is greater than zero.

CCP section 489.210 requires the Plaintiff to provide an undertaking before the Court may issue a writ of attachment. CCP section 489.220 sets the amount for an undertaking at $10,000.

Therefore, the Court will not issue the writ of attachment on the property of the Defendant, Velocity Regional Center, until the Plaintiff files an undertaking for $10,000.