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

WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY VS. STONEWARE ENTERPRISES INC.

Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application for Right to Attach Order and Writ of Attachment. Plaintiff to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

DAVID SCHWARTZ, ET AL. VS MC2 CONSTRUCTION LA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

., 19STCV21793 Tentative decision on application for right to attach order: denied Plaintiff David Schwartz (“Schwartz”) seeks a right to attach order against Defendant Michael Lawrence Cimmarrusti (“Cimmarrusti”) in the amount of $173,391.98. 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. Complaint Plaintiff Schwartz commenced this action on June 21, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

UP AND RUNNING SOFTWARE,INC., A MICHIGAN CORPORATION VS OBEN, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

., 20STCV26961 Tentative decision on application for right to attach order: granted Plaintiff Up and Running Software, Inc. (“UNR”) applies for a right to attach order against Defendant Oben, Inc. (“Oben”). The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply, and renders the following tentative decision. A. Statement of the Case 1.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

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

(“Malibu” or “Malibu 1”), Vasili Hatziris (“Vasili”), and John Hatziris (“John”) (collectively “Hatziris”), moves for reconsideration of the court’s September 8, 2020 ruling denying their application for right to attach order against Defendant Saris Der Sarkissian (“Der Sarkissian”). The court has read and considered the moving papers and late opposition (no reply was filed), and renders the following tentative decision. A. Statement of the Case 1.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

LAVOIE VS XXXXXX

The unopposed Application for Right to Attach Order, filed by Plaintiff Donald Lavoie, seeking attachment in the amount of $2,000,000 as to Defendant xxxxxxxxxxxx, is GRANTED. Plaintiff has demonstrated that the claim sued upon is one upon which attachment may be sought and that the requirements for attachment are met. (See C.C.P. §§ 483.010 and 484.090.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

  • Judge

    xxxxx HOFFER

  • County

    Orange County, CA

H MART NORWALK, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS SMART CHOICE SUPERMARKET, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

PURPOSE OF ATTACHMENT: As stated on the Application for Right to Attach Order (Judicial Council Form AT-105, No. 4), the attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery on the claim upon which the attachment is based. AMOUNT OF WRIT: The writ will issue for the amount of the claimed indebtedness, plus an amount to cover costs and allowable attorney fees as determined by the court reduced by… any security interest held by plaintiff in defendant's property. (CCP § 483.015.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NF PLAYA DEL ORO, LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS THE HARVEST BAR 2, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

The Harvest Bar 2, LLC, et al. 20TRCV00201 NF Playa Del Oro, LP’s Application for Right to Attach Order and for Issuance of Writ of Attachment as to The Harvest Bar 2, LLC TENTATIVE RULING NF Playa Del Oro, LP’s Application for Right to Attach Order and for Issuance of Writ of Attachment as to The Harvest Bar 2, LLC is granted.

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

PAWNEE LEASING CORPORATION VS ROBERTO ESPARZA ROSALES

., Tentative decision on application for right to attach order: denied Plaintiff Pawnee Leasing Corporation (“Pawnee”) applies for a right to attach order against Defendant Roberto Esparza Rosales aka Roberto E. Rosales aka Roberto Rosales (“Rosales”), individually and dba Don Kito Towing (“DKT”) in the amount of $39,751.97. The court has read and considered the moving papers[1] (no opposition was filed), and renders the following tentative decision. A. Statement of the Case 1.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

NAHID REZAEIYAN VS BOITE, LLC, ET AL.

Whatever evidence or argument Plaintiff submitted in the arbitration proceedings to support his claim that Fruchtman was personally liable was not presented in his application for right to attach order. Accordingly, Defendant Fruchtman has not had opportunity to respond to this evidence in opposition. For purposes of the application for right to attach order, Plaintiff did not meet its burden in the application to show a probably valid contract claim against Fruchtman or Turrey. 2.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

JON MERRIMAN, ET AL. VS ROBERT MUNDT

., 20STCV16381 Tentative decision on application for right to attach order: denied Plaintiffs Jon Merriman (“Jon”) and Odile Merriman (“Odile”) (collectively the “Merrimans”) seek a right to attach order against Defendant Robert Mundt (“Mundt”) in the amount of $690,000. The court has read and considered the moving papers[1], opposition,[2] and reply,[3] and renders the following tentative decision. A. Statement of the Case 1.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JON MERRIMAN, ET AL. VS ROBERT MUNDT

., 20STCV16381 Tentative decision on application for right to attach order: denied Plaintiffs Jon Merriman (“Jon”) and Odile Merriman (“Odile”) (collectively the “Merrimans”) seek a right to attach order against Defendant Robert Mundt (“Mundt”) in the amount of $690,000. 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

    Oct 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SOUTH PACIFIC REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS 1450 NORTH FAIR OAKS,LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABIITY COMPANY, DBA GOLDEN CROS HEALTH CARE

., 485.210] Date: 10/23/20 (8:30 AM) Case: South Pacific Rehab Services v. 1450 North Fair Oaks, LLC( TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff South Pacific Rehabilitation Services, Inc.’s application for right to attach order and order for issuance of writ of attachment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff fails to provide any competent evidence of the probability of its claim of $214,904.52, or its request for $1,500 in attorney fees and $500 in costs.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

ASSOCIATED BROKERS ORANGE COUNTY TWO, INC. VS SRS PROPERTIES LLC

Motion for Protective Order The unopposed Application for Right to Attach Order and for Issuance of a Writ of Attachment filed by Petitioner Associated Brokers Orange County Two, Inc. on 9/28/20 is Granted. Petitioner here has shown that the requirements for attachment under C.C.P. §483.010 and §484.090 are met.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

ASIN VS RIVERA

Plaintiff Maria Pilar Asin brings this Application for Right to Attach Order and Writ of Attachment, seeking an Order against Defendants Mario Rivera, Corinne Hernandez, Alberto Rivera or Maria Del Carmen Delores Asin Frias. Defendants have not filed opposition to the Application.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ASIN VS RIVERA

Plaintiff Maria Pilar Asin brings this Application for Right to Attach Order and Writ of Attachment, seeking an Order against Defendants Mario Rivera, Corinne Hernandez, Alberto Rivera or Maria Del Carmen Delores Asin Frias. Defendants have not filed opposition to the Application.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RETAIL CAPITAL VS CISCO MEDICA

HEARING ON RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER & ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF ATTMNT ( PLTF) * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiff Retail Capital LLC’s Application for Right to Attach Order and Writ of Attachment is denied without prejudice. The Court notes that the Application for Right to Attach Order is directed to Defendant Mohamed K. Baz, an individual. Background On or about September 6 2018, Defendant Cisco Medical Corp., entered into a Business Loan Agreement with Plaintiff, Retail Capital, LLC.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

HARI JEWELS, INC. V. SHERYL LOWE DESIGNS LLC, ET AL.

(Judge Sterne) Case No. 19CV02255 Hearing Date: October 19, 2020 HEARING: (1) Plaintiff’s Application for Right to Attach Order and Writ of Attachment as to Defendant Sheryl Lowe (2) Plaintiff’s Application for Right to Attach Order and Writ of Attachment as to Defendant Sheryl Lowe Designs LLC ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiff Hari Jewels Inc.: Jacqueline N.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

902878 ONTARIO LTD, A CANADIAN CORPORATION VS EMMETT FURLA OASIS FILMS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

The court takes judicial notice of the following documents is the court file: (1) portions of Exhibit A attached to the Declaration of John Heersink submitted by Plaintiff, (2) October 1, 2020 Minute Order granting Plaintiff’s Application for Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment After Hearing and (3) the Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment After Hearing issued October 1, 2020. Evid. Code § 452.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ESTATE OF KATHERINE L LOFORTE-DELGADILLO

RE: APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER FILED ON 12/06/19 BY EFREN DELGADILLO JR PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2. Proof of mailing Judicial Council Form Notice of Hearing to all persons entitled to receive notice 3. Proposed Order PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

PAWNEE LEASING CORPORATION VS PYR PRESERVATION SERVICES

TENTATIVE RULING: (1) Plaintiff's Application for Right to Attach Order and Writ of Attachment Against Defendant PYR PRESERVATION SERVICES, a California corporation fka PACIFIC YACHT REFITTERS, INC. and (2) Plaintiff's Application for Right to Attach Order and Writ of Attachment Against Defendants DANIEL ROSS CUMMINS aka DANIEL R. CUMMINS aka DANIEL CUMMINS are GRANTED. Defendants are now defaulted. Plaintiff has shown a probable validity of its claims.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BMO HARRIS BANK N.A., FOR ITSELF AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO GE CAPITAL COMMERCIAL INC., GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORA VS DAWEI XIAO, ET AL.

for Right to Attach Order, Temporary Protective Order, Etc.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

SUNSET PLACE BUILDING, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS MMA, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Plaintiff submitted two notices of application for right to attach order on form AT-115. Both notices name Defendant Luboz Azria, as trustee of the Azria Family Trust. Plaintiff submitted one application for right to attach order (Form AT-105) also directed to Defendant Luboz Azria, as trustee of the Azria Family Trust.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

902878 ONTARIO LTD, A CANADIAN CORPORATION VS EMMETT FURLA OASIS FILMS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

., 20STCV24791 Tentative decision on application for right to attach order: granted Plaintiff 902878 Ontario Ltd. (“Ontario”) seeks right to attach orders against Defendant Emmett Furla Oasis Films, LLC (“EFO”) in the amount of $945,000. The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply,[1] and renders the following tentative decision. A. Statement of the Case 1.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ULLRICH VS MUGO

Application for Right to Attach Order/Writ of Attachment re Sandra Cook 2. Application for Right to Attach Order/Writ of Attachment re Sandra Cook as Trustee 3. Motion to Compel Further Responses and Production of Cell Phone 4. Status Conference

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

ULLRICH VS MUGO

Application for Right to Attach Order/Writ of Attachment re Sandra Cook 2. Application for Right to Attach Order/Writ of Attachment re Sandra Cook as Trustee 3. Motion to Compel Further Responses and Production of Cell Phone 4. Status Conference Motion to Compel The Motion to Compel Production brought by Plaintiff Kelsey Ullrich is CONTINUED to November 20, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. in Department CX101.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 37     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.