California Laws|Section 484.050.

                                                

484.050.  

The notice of application and hearing shall inform the defendant of all of the following:

(a) A hearing will be held at a place and at a time, to be specified in the notice, on plaintiff’s application for a right to attach order and a writ of attachment.

(b) The order will be issued if the court finds that the plaintiff’s claim is probably valid and the other requirements for issuing the order are established. The hearing is not
for the purpose of determining whether the claim is actually valid. The determination of the actual validity of the claim will be made in subsequent proceedings in the action and will not be affected by the decisions at the hearing on the application for the order.

(c) The amount to be secured by the attachment is determined pursuant to Sections 482.110, 483.010, 483.015, and 483.020, which statutes shall be summarized in the notice.

(d) If the right to attach order is issued, a writ of attachment will be issued to attach the property described in the plaintiff’s application unless the court determines that such property is exempt from attachment or that its value clearly exceeds the amount necessary to satisfy the amount to be secured by the attachment. However, additional writs of attachment may be issued to attach other nonexempt property of the defendant on the basis of the
right to attach order.

(e) If the defendant desires to oppose the issuance of the order, the defendant shall file with the court and serve on the plaintiff a notice of opposition and supporting affidavit as required by Section 484.060 not later than five court days prior to the date set for hearing.

(f) If the defendant claims that the personal property described in the application, or a portion thereof, is exempt from attachment, the defendant shall include that claim in the notice of opposition filed and served pursuant to Section 484.060 or file and serve a separate claim of exemption with respect to the property as provided in Section 484.070. If the defendant does not do so, the claim of exemption will be barred in the absence of a showing of a change in circumstances occurring after the expiration of the time for claiming exemptions.

(g) The defendant may obtain a determination at the hearing whether real or personal property not described in the application or real property described in the application is exempt from attachment by including the claim in the notice of opposition filed and served pursuant to Section 484.060 or by filing and serving a separate claim of exemption with respect to the property as provided in Section 484.070, but the failure to so claim that the property is exempt from attachment will not preclude the defendant from making a claim of exemption with respect to the property at a later time.

(h) Either the defendant or the defendant’s attorney or both of them may be present at the hearing.

(i) The notice shall contain the following statement: “You may seek the advice of an attorney as to any matter connected with the
plaintiff’s application. The attorney should be consulted promptly so that the attorney may assist you before the time set for hearing.”

(Amended by Stats. 1997, Ch. 222, Sec. 7. Effective January 1, 1998.)

View Latest Rulings

To comply with this statute, parties often use Form AT-115, which includes the numerous statements required by section 484.050. Plaintiff did not use Form AT-115 and instead created its own notice. The notices served by Plaintiff include only the date, time, and location of the hearing, and the amount sought to be attached. Plaintiff did not include the mandatory statements set forth in section 484.050(b)-(i). “The Attachment Law statutes are subject to strict construction.” (Epstein v.

  • Name

    9650 BEDFORD DRIVE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS AN BEVERLY HILLS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV14240

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2021

To comply with this statute, parties often use Form AT-115, which includes the numerous statements required by section 484.050. Plaintiff did not use Form AT-115 and instead created its own notice. The notices served by Plaintiff include only the date, time, and location of the hearing, and the amount sought to be attached. Plaintiff did not include the mandatory statements set forth in section 484.050(b)-(i). “The Attachment Law statutes are subject to strict construction.” (Epstein v.

  • Name

    (NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

  • Case No.

    21SSTCV14240

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2021

The notice of motion fails to provide defendant with adequate notice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 484.050. In addition, an attachment must be based on a contract claim that is either “fixed” or “readily” ascertainable. Here, an attachment is sought for $153,000, but plaintiff has failed to establish that that sum is either fixed or readily ascertainable.

  • Name

    DAWAM V. YEHIA

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00956706-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2017

Along the same lines, MP fails to comply with the notice requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 484.050. Although it does not appear any of the required language of section 484.050 was set forth in the notice of motion, the most notable was the failure to indicate the “amount to be secured by attachment.” (Code Civ. Proc., §484.050.)

  • Name

    ABERNETHY VS. WAYNE A HAGENDORF AS TRUSTEE OF THE BUTCH TRUST, AND AS GENERAL PARTNER OF THE LAW OFFICES OF HAGENDORF & ABERNETHY

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00940100

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2021

First, Code of Civil Procedure section 484.050 specifies the required contents that a party in its notice of application for a right to attach order and a writ of attachment. Here, Plaintiff’s Application does not contain the contents specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 484.050, subdivisions (b) through (i).

  • Name

    EAN SERVICES, LLC V. LETTER RIDE, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01146389

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

View More Rulings

View Latest Dockets

Filed

Apr 30, 2003

Status

Default Judgment

Judge

Hon. Espinoza, Peter Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Espinoza, Peter

Court

Norwalk Courthouse

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Category

Other Commercial/Business Tort (General Jurisdiction)

Practice Area

Commercial

Matter Type

General Commercial

58 Files
Filed

Sep 06, 2019

Status

Dismissal

Judge

Hon. Foiles, Robert D Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Foiles, Robert D

Court

Superior

County

San Mateo County, CA

8 Files
Filed

May 11, 2009

Status

Default Judgment

Judge

Hon. Lisa A. Novak Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Lisa A. Novak

Court

San Mateo County

County

San Mateo County, CA

Practice Area

Commercial

Matter Type

Breach of Contract

View More Dockets
Previous Section

Doc thumbnail Section 484.040.

Next Section

Doc thumbnail Section 484.060.

View Latest Documents

preview-icon 7 pages

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 04/06/2022 04:08 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by V. Ortega,Deputy Clerk 1 Joseph W. Kellener [SBN #2995971 DIGNITY LAW GROUP APC 2 14401 Sylmar Street, Suite 102 Van Nuys, California 91401 3 Telephone: (818) 901-8600 E-mail: jk~dignitylawgroup.com A…

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Filed Date

Apr 06, 2022

Category

Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction)

Judge Hon. Michael P. Linfield Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Michael P. Linfield
preview-icon Preview

" a2/a6/2017 14:39 as SPIWAK IEZZA e@ PAGE 2 ' SPIWAK & IEZZA, LLP Nick I. Jezza (SBN 128570) Kelly A. Sweeney (SBN 239613) 555 Marin Street, Suite 140 Superior Court of Cali Thousand Oaks, CA 9360 …

Case Filed

Apr 26, 2018

Case Status

Request for Dismissal - Before Trial not following ADR or more than 60 days since ADR 07/18/2019

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Filed Date

Jul 09, 2018

Category

Claims Involving Mass Tort (General Jurisdiction)

Judge Hon. Robert B. Broadbelt Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Robert B. Broadbelt
preview-icon 2 pages

Case Number: 19-CIV-05221 SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 400 County Center 1050 Mission Road Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080 …

Case Filed

Sep 06, 2019

Case Status

Dismissed

County

San Mateo County, CA

Filed Date

Nov 22, 2019

Judge Hon. Foiles, Robert D Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Foiles, Robert D
preview-icon 3 pages

OOOO San Francisco Superior Courts Information Technology Group Document Scanning Lead Sheet Mar-15-2002 3:18 pm Case Number: CGC-01-401405 Filing Date: Mar-15-2002 3:17 Juke Box: 001 Image: 00379192 ORDER ALCHEMY LABS, INC. et al VS. FROGDESIGN, INC. et al 001000379192 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.to pw Cyrus K. Ipaktchi, Esq. (SBN 178956) General Counsel FROG DESIGN INC. [formerly FROG WERK INC. ] 1327 Chesapeake Terrace Sunnyvale, CA 9…

County

San Francisco County, CA

Filed Date

Mar 15, 2002

Category

CONTRACT/WARRANTY

Judge Hon. Arlene T. Borick Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Arlene T. Borick
preview-icon Preview

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division West District, Santa Monica Courthouse, Department R 20SMCV00259 April 12, 2021 NEWMARK OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. vs 9:30 AM GOOGLE MD LLC Judge: Honorable Mark H. Epstein CSR: None Judicial Assistant: E. Sam …

Case Filed

Feb 18, 2020

Case Status

Pending

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Filed Date

Apr 12, 2021

Category

Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) (General Jurisdiction)

Judge Hon. Mark H. Epstein Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Mark H. Epstein
View More Documents

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope