On January 03, 2019 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Jansohn, Sara Jane,
Lion Share Investments, Llc, A California Limited Liability Company,
and
Does 1-100, Inclusive,
Hall, Justin Rodgers,
Jansohn, Sara Jane,
Miller, Tonika Lynette,
Rex Regum, Llc, A Wyoming Limited Liability Company,
Selene Finance Lp,
Wilmington Savings Fund Society, Fsb D B A Christiana Trust, Not Individually,
for (26) Unlimited Other Real Property
in the District Court of San Mateo County.
Preview
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG DAVIS
F I L E
' '
Craig Davis: (3B3; 268194)
cdaws@cra1gdav151aw.com
.
.
‘
D
912 Suite SAN MATEO COUNTY
que Street, 102 .
San Francisco; CA 941 17-43 16
Tel.: 415.857.5820
Fax: 415.795.4595
Attorney for Defendant and Cross-Complainant
SARA JANSOHN
SUPERIOR' COURT OFTHE STATE OFCALIFORNIAl
"COUNTY 0F SAN MATEO
r—A
o
-
UNLIMITEDJURISDICTION
p—A_
r—l
LION SHARE INVESTMENTS, LLC, CASE NO.
p—t
N
q
19-CIV—00018'
p—A.
I
w
Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM QF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF s
_
h
v—I
v. *
JANSOHN’S
F_,a.~ _ - .
)—t
Ur
.
H
TY
_
REX REGUM, LLC; . , _
JUSTIN RODGERS HALL; WW
r—t
O\
ITONIKA LYNETTE-MILLER; yea. b
M
Q
r—4
SARAJANEJANSOHN; I
Date: 2021
and DOES 1-100, I
Time: 1:30 p.m.
'r—d
oo
_
Place: Department‘2
‘
Defendants. '
’
’—-
\o
- r
I
‘
Assigned TO: Hon. Marie-S. Weiner.
-
o
N
Department:
'
2
SARAJANEJANSOHN, I
IQ
t—l
_ I
. ‘
A.
_
x.
Action Filed: January 3, 2019
Cross-Complainant; Trial Date: TBD
N
N
v.
‘N
w
I
REX REGUM, LLC;
N
A
kl
JUSTIN RODGERS HALL;
N
U:
TONIKA LYNETTE MILLER;
LION SHARE INVESTMENTS, LLC')
N
O\
JOHN CHAU; ;
and DOES
I:
101-200,
N
00
Cross-Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
The uridersigned attorey has'had less than an hour to prepare this opposition tojthe
Lenders’ exparte application. Nonetheless, in a nutshell; the writ of attachment was proper, and
if theLenders want to quash the writ they need'to le a noticed
motion.
to
quash.
4
‘
I. Legal Standard.
Attachment is a prejuclgment remedy that allows a creditor to have a lien.on the debtor's
\assets until nal adjudication of the claim sued upon (see CCP § 481.610 et seq.). The creditor must
follow statutory guidelines in applying for the attachment and establish a primafacie
'
claim;‘and the
court isvrequired to make a determination of the merits of the dispute. (Imber Indus. of
preliminary
Cali v. Turbulence, Inc. (1985) 1‘75
CA3d 532, 535, 221 CR 233, 235). Notwithstanding Section
483.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an attachment may be issued in any action for damages
pursuant to Section 15657.5 for nancial abuse of an elder'or dependent adult, as dened in Section
15610.30. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657.01.) .
i
’Th-e requirements for obtaining a writ of attachment arer'the claim upon which the
attachment is based is one upon which an attachment may issue; 2° plaintiff has established the
- the attachment is not
probable validity of the claim; sought for a purpose other than recovery of
the claim upon which the attachment is based; and ° the amount to be secured by the attachment is
greater than zero. CCP § 484.090(‘a); see Calgcomz'a Retail Por‘olio Fund GmbH €99 Co. KG v. Hopkins
Real Estate Group (201 l) 193 CA4th 849, 856, 122 CR3d 614, 619, fn. 3. Attachment, Cal. Prac.
‘
Guide Giv. Pro. Before Trial ch. 9(11)_D
Code of Civil Procedure section 485.240, subdivision (b), precludes review of the issue of
great or irreparable injury. The reason it does so is plain-Once having occurred, the levy
without notice cannot be undone, and no remedy remains to the debtor other than to
challenge the validity of the attachment, if he can. A noticed procedure, namely the
motion to quash, is provided for making this challenge. At the hearing on
such motion,
the plainti‘ has the burden of'proving that the attachment itself is proper ( Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly
Inc. 1116
Glen Music, (1985) 1166 Cal.App.3d 11 10, [2 12 Cal.Rptr. 830]). Westem Steel 69°Ship Repair,
a RMI, Ina 176
N
OO
Inc. (1986) Cal.App.3d 1108, 13
'1 1
[222 CaiRptr. 556]
' I
DECLARATION OF CRAIG DAVIS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 2
'
,
SUPPORT OF SARA JANSOHN’S EXPARTE APPLICATION - CASE NO. 19CIV0001 8
II. . Discussion
Cross-Complainant ar1d Défendant Sarajanejansqhn (‘jahsohn”), through her cotinsel,
submits this opposition to the Lenders’ exparte application.Jansohn led an¥ ex on
parte‘ applicatidn
October 28, 2021 to preserve the staus _quo while her motioh for reeonsideration and appellate,
' 2
writ petitioh were pending.
A. An elder financial abuse claim-is subject t9 prejudgment attachment,
and the Lenders have not shown (or argued) otherwise.
A prejudgmeht wn't of attachment is available under a claim involving nancial abuse of
elder or dependent adult under
Welf& IjC §15657.0-l, even if the requirements of CCP §483.010
10 have not been metJansohn’s claim arises out of conduct of Tonika Miller, a natural person, who
has taken real property elder for a wrongful use and to defraud. The Lenders cannot
of an
11
ivntent
/
12 challenge the propriety of the pre-judgment writ in this case.
13 B. The Lenders were notied ofJansohn’s ex parte application.
'
14 I notied the
Lenders of the October 28, 2021 ex parteapplication, even though they are not
15 a party to this proceeding. The Lenders’ attorney replied: “OK? (Davis Declaration 1m 4-7.)
16 C. Even if the Lenders had not been notied, they must le a
17 m___ou'on to quash the writ and the TPO.
18 As the Court “Once
oprpeal explained1n the very case that the Lenders cited to: having
19 0cCurred, the notice cannot be undone, and no remedy remains to the debtor other
levy without
20 than to challenge the validity of the attachment, if he can. A noticed procedure, namely the motion
provided for making this challenge. At the hearing on such motion, the plaintiff has the
21 to quash is
22 that the attachment itselfis
burden ofproving
I/Vestem Steel€99
Ship Repair, Inc. v.RM], Inc.
proper
23 176 Cal.App.3d 1113 [citations omitted; emphasis added]
(1986) 1108,
24 D. Jansohnls not trying to circumvent the order
byJudge Lee—Jansohnis
_
25
only trying to preserve the status quo while her motion for
'26 reconsideration and appellate writ petition are pending.
’
27 Jansohn has informed all parties in the criminal case that she is seeking reconsideration of
28 Judge Lee’s order approving the sale. (Davis Decl. 114-7). The issues regarding the sale of the.
DECLARATION OF CRAIG DAVIS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN . 3
SUPPORT QF SARA JANSOHN’S EXPARTE APPLICATION - CASE NO. 19CIV00018'
Property will likely be resolved on December 17, 2021, whenjansohn’ s motion for reconsideration
2 will be heard. (Id. 11114—13). Jansolmls condent that her motion will be Lee’ s
granted
becausejudge
3 order was based on two clear mistakes of fact and mistakes oflaw.
4 The Lenders had not provided any compelling reason why this Court should not preserve
the statns quo in the next
two'weeks while the motions regardingjudge Lee’s; order are pending:
5
6 E. The Lenders are (once agein) trying to sneak through an ozmarket sale
7 of the Property without a. noticed‘motion
' '
8 Notably,Judge Lee’s order approving the sale was issued without a noticed motion from the
If the Lenders had submitted their applicationwith proper notice, rather than trying to
'1
9 Lenders.
10 it through on just a few days notice (See Ekmekchyan Decl: 1m 15—16 [showing that the
sneak
11 application was‘submitted on a Friday and without any notice of motion], thenJudge Lee likely
t
12 would have disapproved the sale at that time.
13
14 For the foregoing reasons,Jansohn respectfully requests that this Court deny the Lenders’ ex‘
15 [7am application order and require the Lenders to le a'noticejmotion to quash.
16
. q
‘
I
i
I
17 ; Dated: December b, 202 1i v
‘Respectfully submitted,
'
18 ',
19
f
20
\
Eggsvi OFFICES OF CRAIG DAVIS
Attorney for Defendant and Cross-Complainant
21
i
SARAJANSQHN
22 -’
23
24 ,
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF CRAIG DAVIS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 4
SUPPORT OF SARA JANSOHN’S EX PARTE APPLICATION - CASE NO. 19CIV00018
Preview
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG DAVIS F I L E ' ' Craig Davis: (3B3; 268194) cdaws@cra1gdav151aw.com . . ‘ D 912 Suite SAN MATEO COUNTY que Street, 102 . San Francisco; CA 941 17-43 16 Tel.: 415.857.5820 Fax: 415.795.4595 Attorney for Defendant and Cross-Complainant SARA JANSOHN SUPERIOR' COURT OFTHE STATE OFCALIFORNIAl "COUNTY 0F SAN MATEO r—A o - UNLIMITEDJURISDICTION p—A_ r—l LION SHARE INVESTMENTS, LLC, CASE NO. p—t N q 19-CIV—00018' p—A. I w Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM QF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF s _ h v—I v. * JANSOHN’S F_,a.~ _ - . )—t Ur . H TY _ REX REGUM, LLC; . , _ JUSTIN RODGERS HALL; WW r—t O\ ITONIKA LYNETTE-MILLER; yea. b M Q r—4 SARAJANEJANSOHN; I Date: 2021 and DOES 1-100, I Time: 1:30 p.m. 'r—d oo _ Place: Department‘2 ‘ Defendants. ' ’ ’—- \o - r I ‘ Assigned TO: Hon. Marie-S. Weiner. - o N Department: ' 2 SARAJANEJANSOHN, I IQ t—l _ I . ‘ A. _ x. Action Filed: January 3, 2019 Cross-Complainant; Trial Date: TBD N N v. ‘N w I REX REGUM, LLC; N A kl JUSTIN RODGERS HALL; N U: TONIKA LYNETTE MILLER; LION SHARE INVESTMENTS, LLC') N O\ JOHN CHAU; ; and DOES I: 101-200, N 00 Cross-Defendants. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES The uridersigned attorey has'had less than an hour to prepare this opposition tojthe Lenders’ exparte application. Nonetheless, in a nutshell; the writ of attachment was proper, and if theLenders want to quash the writ they need'to le a noticed motion. to quash. 4 ‘ I. Legal Standard. Attachment is a prejuclgment remedy that allows a creditor to have a lien.on the debtor's \assets until nal adjudication of the claim sued upon (see CCP § 481.610 et seq.). The creditor must follow statutory guidelines in applying for the attachment and establish a primafacie ' claim;‘and the court isvrequired to make a determination of the merits of the dispute. (Imber Indus. of preliminary Cali v. Turbulence, Inc. (1985) 1‘75 CA3d 532, 535, 221 CR 233, 235). Notwithstanding Section 483.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an attachment may be issued in any action for damages pursuant to Section 15657.5 for nancial abuse of an elder'or dependent adult, as dened in Section 15610.30. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657.01.) . i ’Th-e requirements for obtaining a writ of attachment arer'the claim upon which the attachment is based is one upon which an attachment may issue; 2° plaintiff has established the - the attachment is not probable validity of the claim; sought for a purpose other than recovery of the claim upon which the attachment is based; and ° the amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero. CCP § 484.090(‘a); see Calgcomz'a Retail Por‘olio Fund GmbH €99 Co. KG v. Hopkins Real Estate Group (201 l) 193 CA4th 849, 856, 122 CR3d 614, 619, fn. 3. Attachment, Cal. Prac. ‘ Guide Giv. Pro. Before Trial ch. 9(11)_D Code of Civil Procedure section 485.240, subdivision (b), precludes review of the issue of great or irreparable injury. The reason it does so is plain-Once having occurred, the levy without notice cannot be undone, and no remedy remains to the debtor other than to challenge the validity of the attachment, if he can. A noticed procedure, namely the motion to quash, is provided for making this challenge. At the hearing on such motion, the plainti‘ has the burden of'proving that the attachment itself is proper ( Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Inc. 1116 Glen Music, (1985) 1166 Cal.App.3d 11 10, [2 12 Cal.Rptr. 830]). Westem Steel 69°Ship Repair, a RMI, Ina 176 N OO Inc. (1986) Cal.App.3d 1108, 13 '1 1 [222 CaiRptr. 556] ' I DECLARATION OF CRAIG DAVIS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 2 ' , SUPPORT OF SARA JANSOHN’S EXPARTE APPLICATION - CASE NO. 19CIV0001 8 II. . Discussion Cross-Complainant ar1d Défendant Sarajanejansqhn (‘jahsohn”), through her cotinsel, submits this opposition to the Lenders’ exparte application.Jansohn led an¥ ex on parte‘ applicatidn October 28, 2021 to preserve the staus _quo while her motioh for reeonsideration and appellate, ' 2 writ petitioh were pending. A. An elder financial abuse claim-is subject t9 prejudgment attachment, and the Lenders have not shown (or argued) otherwise. A prejudgmeht wn't of attachment is available under a claim involving nancial abuse of elder or dependent adult under Welf& IjC §15657.0-l, even if the requirements of CCP §483.010 10 have not been metJansohn’s claim arises out of conduct of Tonika Miller, a natural person, who has taken real property elder for a wrongful use and to defraud. The Lenders cannot of an 11 ivntent / 12 challenge the propriety of the pre-judgment writ in this case. 13 B. The Lenders were notied ofJansohn’s ex parte application. ' 14 I notied the Lenders of the October 28, 2021 ex parteapplication, even though they are not 15 a party to this proceeding. The Lenders’ attorney replied: “OK? (Davis Declaration 1m 4-7.) 16 C. Even if the Lenders had not been notied, they must le a 17 m___ou'on to quash the writ and the TPO. 18 As the Court “Once oprpeal explained1n the very case that the Lenders cited to: having 19 0cCurred, the notice cannot be undone, and no remedy remains to the debtor other levy without 20 than to challenge the validity of the attachment, if he can. A noticed procedure, namely the motion provided for making this challenge. At the hearing on such motion, the plaintiff has the 21 to quash is 22 that the attachment itselfis burden ofproving I/Vestem Steel€99 Ship Repair, Inc. v.RM], Inc. proper 23 176 Cal.App.3d 1113 [citations omitted; emphasis added] (1986) 1108, 24 D. Jansohnls not trying to circumvent the order byJudge Lee—Jansohnis _ 25 only trying to preserve the status quo while her motion for '26 reconsideration and appellate writ petition are pending. ’ 27 Jansohn has informed all parties in the criminal case that she is seeking reconsideration of 28 Judge Lee’s order approving the sale. (Davis Decl. 114-7). The issues regarding the sale of the. DECLARATION OF CRAIG DAVIS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN . 3 SUPPORT QF SARA JANSOHN’S EXPARTE APPLICATION - CASE NO. 19CIV00018' Property will likely be resolved on December 17, 2021, whenjansohn’ s motion for reconsideration 2 will be heard. (Id. 11114—13). Jansolmls condent that her motion will be Lee’ s granted becausejudge 3 order was based on two clear mistakes of fact and mistakes oflaw. 4 The Lenders had not provided any compelling reason why this Court should not preserve the statns quo in the next two'weeks while the motions regardingjudge Lee’s; order are pending: 5 6 E. The Lenders are (once agein) trying to sneak through an ozmarket sale 7 of the Property without a. noticed‘motion ' ' 8 Notably,Judge Lee’s order approving the sale was issued without a noticed motion from the If the Lenders had submitted their applicationwith proper notice, rather than trying to '1 9 Lenders. 10 it through on just a few days notice (See Ekmekchyan Decl: 1m 15—16 [showing that the sneak 11 application was‘submitted on a Friday and without any notice of motion], thenJudge Lee likely t 12 would have disapproved the sale at that time. 13 14 For the foregoing reasons,Jansohn respectfully requests that this Court deny the Lenders’ ex‘ 15 [7am application order and require the Lenders to le a'noticejmotion to quash. 16 . q ‘ I i I 17 ; Dated: December b, 202 1i v ‘Respectfully submitted, ' 18 ', 19 f 20 \ Eggsvi OFFICES OF CRAIG DAVIS Attorney for Defendant and Cross-Complainant 21 i SARAJANSQHN 22 -’ 23 24 , 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF CRAIG DAVIS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 4 SUPPORT OF SARA JANSOHN’S EX PARTE APPLICATION - CASE NO. 19CIV00018