This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/06/2021 at 23:19:55 (UTC).

PAWNEE LEASING CORPORATION VS TIFFANY'S HOUSE OF BOUNCE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 10/13/2020 PAWNEE LEASING CORPORATION filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against TIFFANY'S HOUSE OF BOUNCE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******8663

  • Filing Date:

    10/13/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

PAWNEE LEASING CORPORATION

Defendants

BLANKENSHIP TIFFANY MERITA AKA TIFFANY M. BLANKENSHIP AKA TIFFANY BLANKENSHIP AN INDIVIDUAL

TIFFANY'S HOUSE OF BOUNCE A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA HOUSE OF BOUNCE

BLANKENSHIP IAN MICHAEL AKA IAN M. BLANKENSHIP AKA IAN BLANKENSHIP AN INDIVIDUAL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Other Attorneys

WITTLIN IRWIN

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

6/21/2021: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Declaration of Interest, Costs and Attorney Fees - Declaration of Interest, Costs and Attorney Fees

6/21/2021: Declaration of Interest, Costs and Attorney Fees - Declaration of Interest, Costs and Attorney Fees

Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment - Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

6/21/2021: Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment - Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

4/16/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Right to Attach Order After Hearing and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment - Right to Attach Order After Hearing and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment

1/25/2021: Right to Attach Order After Hearing and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment - Right to Attach Order After Hearing and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment

Right to Attach Order After Hearing and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment - Right to Attach Order After Hearing and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment

1/25/2021: Right to Attach Order After Hearing and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment - Right to Attach Order After Hearing and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment

Order (name extension) - Decision on application for right to attach orders: granted in part

1/19/2021: Order (name extension) - Decision on application for right to attach orders: granted in part

Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

12/4/2020: Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

12/4/2020: Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

Notice of Application and Hearing for Writ of Attachment (CCP 484.040) - Notice of Application and Hearing for Writ of Attachment (CCP 484.040)

10/23/2020: Notice of Application and Hearing for Writ of Attachment (CCP 484.040) - Notice of Application and Hearing for Writ of Attachment (CCP 484.040)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Applications for Writs of Attachment

10/23/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Applications for Writs of Attachment

Notice of Application and Hearing for Writ of Attachment (CCP 484.040) - Notice of Application and Hearing for Writ of Attachment (CCP 484.040)

10/23/2020: Notice of Application and Hearing for Writ of Attachment (CCP 484.040) - Notice of Application and Hearing for Writ of Attachment (CCP 484.040)

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

10/23/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Application for Right to Attach Order, Temporary Protective Order, etc. - Application for Right to Attach Order, Temporary Protective Order, etc.

10/23/2020: Application for Right to Attach Order, Temporary Protective Order, etc. - Application for Right to Attach Order, Temporary Protective Order, etc.

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

10/13/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

10/13/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Summons - Summons on Complaint

10/13/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

10/13/2020: Complaint - Complaint

13 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/17/2023
  • Hearing10/17/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2022
  • Hearing04/12/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by: Pawnee Leasing Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2021
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: Pawnee Leasing Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2021
  • DocketDeclaration of Interest, Costs and Attorney Fees; Filed by: Pawnee Leasing Corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Tiffany's House of Bounce, a California corporation (Defendant); Tiffany Merita Blankenship (Defendant); Ian Michael Blankenship (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2021
  • DocketDeclaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment; Filed by: Pawnee Leasing Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2021
  • Docket; On the Complaint filed by Pawnee Leasing Corporation on 10/13/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2021
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Pawnee Leasing Corporation on 10/13/2020, entered Request for Dismissal without prejudice filed by Pawnee Leasing Corporation, does 1-100

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2021
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: Pawnee Leasing Corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Tiffany's House of Bounce, a California corporation (Defendant); Tiffany Merita Blankenship (Defendant); Ian Michael Blankenship (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2021
  • DocketDefault entered as to Tiffany's House of Bounce, a California corporation; Tiffany Merita Blankenship; Ian Michael Blankenship; On the Complaint filed by Pawnee Leasing Corporation on 10/13/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
15 More Docket Entries
  • 10/23/2020
  • DocketNotice of Application and Hearing for Writ of Attachment (CCP 484.040); Filed by: Pawnee Leasing Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2020
  • DocketNotice of Application and Hearing for Writ of Attachment (CCP 484.040); Filed by: Pawnee Leasing Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/12/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/17/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Pawnee Leasing Corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Tiffany's House of Bounce, a California corporation (Defendant); Tiffany Merita Blankenship (Defendant); Ian Michael Blankenship (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Pawnee Leasing Corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Tiffany's House of Bounce, a California corporation (Defendant); Tiffany Merita Blankenship (Defendant); Ian Michael Blankenship (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Pawnee Leasing Corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Tiffany's House of Bounce, a California corporation (Defendant); Tiffany Merita Blankenship (Defendant); Ian Michael Blankenship (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC08663    Hearing Date: January 19, 2021    Dept: 85

Pawnee Leasing Corporation v. Tiffany’s House of Bounce, et al., 20STLC08663

Tentative decision on applications for right to attach orders: granted in part

Plaintiff Pawnee Leasing Corporation (“Pawnee”) applies for right to attach orders against Defendants Tiffany’s House of Bounce dba House of Bounce (“THB”), Tiffany Merita Blankenship aka Tiffany M. Blankenship aka Tiffany Blankenship (“Tiffany”), and Ian Michael Blankenship aka Ian M. Blankenship aka Ian Blankenship (“Ian”) in the amount of $27,930.17.

The court has read and considered the moving papers (no opposition was filed), and renders the following tentative decision.

A. Statement of the Case

1. Complaint

Plaintiff Pawnee commenced this action on October 13, 2020, alleging causes of action for (1) breach of written agreement, (2) breach of personal guaranty, (3) open book account, (4) reasonable value, (5) account stated, (6) indebtedness, (7) unjust enrichment, (8) claim and delivery, and (9) conversion. The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows.

On January 15, 2019, Plaintiff's Assignor, American Capital Group, and Defendant THB entered into a written Lease Agreement wherein Plaintiff's Assignor agreed to lease certain equipment to THB. American Capital Group concurrently assigned all of its right, title and interest in and to the Lease to Plaintiff Pawnee.

Pursuant to the terms of the Lease, THB promised to make lease payments as set forth in the Lease for a total of 36 months at a monthly rent with tax of $978.73. THB is further liable to Plaintiff for taxes, fees, charges and other obligations as set forth in the Lease.

On July 15, 2020, THB failed to make the monthly payments due and owing pursuant to the terms of the Lease. Plaintiff has accelerated the lease receivable balance declaring all amounts owing pursuant to the Lease immediately due and owing. Plaintiff has recovered the leased equipment and liquidated it in a commercially reasonable manner. As of this date, the total amount of the rental payments owing under the Lease, discounted 5%, totals $19,343.73. THB is further liable to Plaintiff for Returned Payments in the amount of $978.73 and Open Property Tax Charges of $258.44 for a Total Contract Obligation of $20,580.90. There is a further Tax on Contract Obligation of $1.955.18 and Other Miscellaneous Charges Due in the amount of $894.09, creating a Net Payoff Due of $23,430,17.

On January 15, 2019, to induce Plaintiff to enter into the Lease, Defendant Tiffany executed in writing a Guaranty of the Lease (“Tiffany Guaranty”). Tiffany is liable to Plaintiff in the sum $23,430.17, together with interest thereon as set forth in the Lease.

On or about January 15, 2019, to induce Plaintiff to enter into the Lease, Defendant Ian executed in writing an individual Guaranty of the Lease (“Ian Guaranty”). Ian is liable to Plaintiff in the sum $23,430.17, together with interest thereon as set forth in the Lease.

Within the last four years, Plaintiff furnished to Defendants at its special instance and request, on an open book account, merchandise and/or services of the agreed upon value of $23,430.17. No part of said sum has been paid although demand therefor has been made. There is now due, owing and unpaid from Defendants said amount together with interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum from July 15, 2020.

2. Course of Proceedings

According to proofs of service on file, Defendants THB and Tiffany were served with the Summons, Complaint, and moving papers on November 20, 2020 via substituted service. The documents were thereafter mailed on November 25, 2020. Defendant Ian was personally served with the documents the same day.

B. Applicable Law

1. Entity Defendants

Attachment is a prejudgment remedy providing for the seizure of one or more of the defendant’s assets to aid in the collection of a money demand pending the outcome of the trial of the action. See Whitehouse v. Six Corporation, (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 527, 533. In 1972, and in a 1977 comprehensive revision, the Legislature enacted attachment legislation (CCP §481.010 et seq.) that meets the due process requirements set forth in Randone v. Appellate Department, (1971) 5 Cal.3d 536. See Western Steel & Ship Repair v. RMI, (12986) 176 Cal.App.3d 1108, 1115. As the attachment statutes are purely the creation of the Legislature, they are strictly construed. Vershbow v. Reiner, (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 879, 882.

A writ of attachment may be issued only in an action on a claim or claims for money, each of which is based upon a contract, express or implied, where the total amount of the claim or claims is a fixed or readily ascertainable amount not less than five hundred dollars ($500). CCP §483.010(a). A claim is “readily ascertainable” where the amount due may be clearly ascertained from the contract and calculated by evidence; the fact that damages are unliquidated is not determinative. CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Super DVD, Inc., (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 537, 540-41 (attachment appropriate for claim based on rent calculation for lease of commercial equipment).

All property within California of a corporation, association, or partnership is subject to attachment if there is a method of levy for the property. CCP §487.010(a), (b). While a trustee is a natural person, a trust is not. Therefore, a trust’s property is subject to attachment on the same basis as a corporation or partnership. Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn & Rossi v. Wilson, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at 4.

The plaintiff may apply for a right to attach order by noticing a hearing for the order and serving the defendant with summons and complaint, notice of the application, and supporting papers any time after filing the complaint. CCP §484.010. Notice of the application must be given pursuant to CCP section 1005, sixteen court days before the hearing. See ibid.

The notice of the application and the application may be made on Judicial Council forms (Optional Forms AT-105, 115). The application must be supported by an affidavit showing that the plaintiff on the facts presented would be entitled to a judgment on the claim upon which the attachment is based. CCP §484.030.

Where the defendant is a corporation, a general reference to “all corporate property which is subject to attachment pursuant to subdivision (a) of Code of Civil Procedure Section 487.010” is sufficient. CCP §484.020(e). Where the defendant is a partnership or other unincorporated association, a reference to “all property of the partnership or other unincorporated association which is subject to attachment pursuant to subdivision (b) of Code of Civil Procedure Section 487.010” is sufficient. CCP §484.020(e). A specific description of property is not required for corporations and partnerships as they generally have no exempt property. Bank of America v. Salinas Nissan, Inc., (“Bank of America”) (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 260, 268.

A defendant who opposes issuance of the order must file and serve a notice of opposition and supporting affidavit as required by CCP section 484.060 not later than five court days prior to the date set for hearing. CCP §484.050(e). The notice of opposition may be made on a Judicial Council form (Optional Form AT-155).

The plaintiff may file and serve a reply two court days prior to the date set for the hearing. CCP §484.060(c).

At the hearing, the court determines whether the plaintiff should receive a right to attach order and whether any property which the plaintiff seeks to attach is exempt from attachment. The defendant may appear the hearing. CCP §484.050(h). The court generally will evaluate the attachment application based solely on the pleadings and supporting affidavits without taking additional evidence. Bank of America, supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at 273. A verified complaint may be used in lieu of or in addition to an affidavit if it states evidentiary facts. CCP §482.040. The plaintiff has the burden of proof, and the court is not required to accept as true any affidavit even if it is undisputed. See Bank of America, supra, at 271, 273.

The court may issue a right to attach order (Optional Form AT-120) if the plaintiff shows all of the following: (1) the claim on which the attachment is based is one on which an attachment may be issued (CCP §484.090(a)(1)); (2) the plaintiff has established the probable validity of the claim (CCP §484.090(a)(2)); (3) attachment is sought for no purpose other than the recovery on the subject claim (CCP §484.090(a)(3); and (4) the amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero (CCP §484.090(a)(4)).

A claim has “probable validity” where it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will recover on that claim. CCP §481.190. In determining this issue, the court must consider the relative merits of the positions of the respective parties. Kemp Bros. Construction, Inc. v. Titan Electric Corp., (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1484. The court does not determine whether the claim is actually valid; that determination will be made at trial and is not affected by the decision on the application for the order. CCP §484.050(b).

The amount to be secured by the attachment is the sum of (1) the amount of the defendant’s indebtedness claimed by the plaintiff, and (2) any additional amount included by the court for estimate of costs and any allowable attorneys’ fees under CCP section 482.110. CCP §483.015(a); Goldstein v. Barak Construction, (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 845, 852. This amount must be reduced by the sum of (1) the amount of indebtedness that the defendant has in a money judgment against plaintiff, (2) the amount claimed in a cross-complaint or affirmative defense and shown would be subject to attachment against the plaintiff, and (3) the value of any security interest held by the plaintiff in the defendant’s property, together with the amount by which the acts of the plaintiff (or a prior holder of the security interest) have decreased that security interest’s value. CCP §483.015(b). A defendant claiming that the amount to be secured should be reduced because of a cross-claim or affirmative defense must make a prima facie showing that the claim would result in an attachment against the plaintiff.

Before the issuance of a writ of attachment, the plaintiff is required to file an undertaking to pay the defendant any amount the defendant may recover for any wrongful attachment by the plaintiff in the action. CCP §489.210. The undertaking ordinarily is $10,000. CCP §489.220. If the defendant objects, the court may increase the amount of undertaking to the amount determined as the probable recovery for wrongful attachment. CCP §489.220. The court also has inherent authority to increase the amount of the undertaking sua sponte. North Hollywood Marble Co. v. Superior Court, (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 683, 691.

2. Individual Defendant

In addition to the foregoing, if the action is against a defendant who is a natural person, an attachment may be issued only on a commercial claim which arises out of the defendant’s conduct of a trade, business, or profession. CCP §483.010(c). Consumer transactions cannot form a basis for attachment. CCP §483.010(c); Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn & Rossi v. Wilson, (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 1, 4 (action involving trust property was a commercial, not a consumer, transaction).

Where the defendant is a natural person, the description of the property must be reasonably adequate to permit the defendant to identify the specific property sought to be attached. CCP §484.020(e). Although the property must be specifically described, the plaintiff may target for attachment everything the individual defendant owns. Bank of America v. Salinas Nissan, Inc., (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 260, 268.

C. Statement of Facts

On January 15, 2019, Plaintiff's Assignor, American Capital Group, and Defendant THB entered into a written Lease Agreement wherein Plaintiff's Assignor agreed to lease certain equipment to THB. Fitzgerald Decl., ¶4, Ex. 1. American Capital Group concurrently assigned all of its right, title and interest in the Lease to Plaintiff Pawnee. Id.

Pursuant to the terms of the Lease, THB promised to pay lease payments as set forth in the Lease for a total of 36 months at a monthly rent with tax of $978.73. Fitzgerald Decl., ¶5, Ex. 1. THB is further liable to Plaintiff for taxes fees, charges, and other obligations as set forth in the Lease. Fitzgerald Decl., ¶6, Ex. 1.

Plaintiff thereafter performed, or was excused from performing, all of the terms and conditions of the Lease required to be performed by it. Fitzgerald Decl., ¶7. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff remained the owner of the equipment scheduled in the Lease transferring to THB only the right to use this equipment pursuant to the Lease, and only so long as the terms of the Lease were performed. Id.

On July 15, 2020, THB failed to make the monthly payments due pursuant to the Lease. Fitzgerald Decl., ¶8. Plaintiff has accelerated the Lease balance declaring all amounts owing immediately due and owing. Id. Plaintiff has recovered the leased equipment and liquidated it in a commercially reasonable manner. Id. As of October 9, 2020, the total amount of the rental payments owing under the Lease, discounted 5% pursuant to paragraph 10, totals $19,343.73. Id.

THB is further liable to Plaintiff for Returned Payments in the amount of $978.73 and Open Property Tax Charges of $258.44 for a Total Contract Obligation of $20,580.90. Fitzgerald Decl., ¶9. There is a further Tax on Contract Obligation of $1 .955.18 and Other Miscellaneous Charges Due in the amount of $894.09, creating a Net Payoff Due of $23,430.17. id.

On January 15, 2019, to induce Plaintiff to enter into the Lease, Defendant Tiffany executed the Tiffany Guaranty. Fitzgerald Decl., ¶11, Ex. 1, p.1. Also on January 15, 2019, Defendant Ian executed the Ian Guaranty. Fitzgerald Decl., ¶14, Ex. 2. Pursuant to their respective Guaranties, Tiffany and Ian are liable to Plaintiff in the sum of $23,430.17. Fitzgerald Decl., ¶¶ 11-17, Ex. 3.

Tiffany and Ian are involved in the day to day operation of the business and derived financial benefit therefrom, as evidenced by the signing of Lease and related documents. Fitzgerald Decl., ¶18. Additionally, Tiffany signed formal organizational documents filed with the California Secretary of State on February 16, 2018, identifying herself as Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, Chief Financial Officer and Director of THB. Id., Ex. 4.

D. Analysis

Pawnee seeks right to attach orders against Defendants in the amount of $27,930.17, which includes estimated attorneys’ fees of $2,500 and costs of $2,000. Defendants do not oppose.

1. A Claim Based on a Contract

Pawnee’s claim is based on the Lease, which is a written contract between Pawnee and THB. Fitzgerald Decl., Ex. 1. Pursuant to the Lease, Pawnee agreed to lease THB certain equipment in return for 36 rental payments. Id. Pawnee’s claim is also based on the Tiffany Guaranty included in the Lease as well as the separate Ian Guaranty, pursuant to which they both guarantied THB’s obligations under the Lease. Fitzgerald Decl., Exs. 1, 2.

This is a claim on which attachment can be based.

3. An Amount Due That is Fixed and Readily Ascertainable

A claim is “readily ascertainable” where the damages may be readily ascertained by reference to the contract and the basis of the calculation appears to be reasonable and definite. CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Super DVD, Inc., (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 537, 540-41. The fact that the damages are unliquidated is not determinative. Id. But the contract must furnish a standard by which the amount may be ascertained and there must be a basis by which the damages can be determined by proof. Id. (citations omitted).

Pawnee provides the Lease, which contains terms demonstrating Pawnee’s entitlement to payment. Fitzgerald Decl., Ex. 1. Pawnee also provides a Statement of Account reflecting that the amount due under the Lease is $23,430.17. Fitzgerald Decl., Ex. 3.

Pawnee claims estimated attorneys’ fees of $2,500 and estimated costs of $2,000. Pawnee does not provide an attorney declaration or statutory basis for either and they are denied. 

4. Probability of Success

Pawnee has demonstrated a probability of success on its claims for breach of written contract and breach of guaranty because it has shown that THB failed to fulfill its obligations under the Lease by failing to make the required payment on July 15, 2020. Fitzgerald Decl., ¶8. Tiffany and Ian also failed to fulfill their obligations under their respective Guaranties by failing to make payment for THB’s obligations. Fitzgerald Decl., ¶8.

5. Attachment is Based on a Commercial Claim

If the action is against a defendant who is a natural person, an attachment may be issued only on a commercial claim which arises out of the defendant’s conduct of a trade, business, or profession. CCP §483.010(c). Consumer transactions cannot form a basis for attachment. CCP §483.010(c); Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn & Rossi v. Wilson, (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 1, 4 (action involving trust property was a commercial, not a consumer, transaction).

Tiffany signed the Lease and the Guaranty as the President of THB. Fitzgerald Decl., Ex. 1. Pawnee also provides evidence showing that Tiffany filed documents with the California Secretary of State identifying herself as Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, Chief Financial Officer and Director of THB. Fitzgerald Decl., Ex. 4. The claim against Tiffany arises from her conduct of a trade, business, or profession as owner of THB.

Pawnee fails to provide sufficient evidence that its claim against Ian arises out of his conduct of a trade, business, or profession. Pawnee only concludes that Ian is involved in the operation of THB (Fitzgerald Decl., ¶18) and fails to provide any details or documentary evidence that Ian is involved in THB’s operation. The claim against Ian does not arise from his conduct of a trade, business, or profession.

6. Defendant’s Property Is Adequately Described

Where the defendant is a natural person, the description of the property must be reasonably adequate to permit the defendant to identify the specific property sought to be attached. CCP §484.020(e). Although the property must be specifically described, the plaintiff may target for attachment everything the individual defendant owns. Bank of America v. Salinas Nissan, Inc., (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 260, 268.

Pawnee claims entitlement to attach the property of Tiffany as follows: (1) deposit accounts pursuant to CCP section 488.455; (2) any accounts receivable or general intangibles pursuant to CCP section 488.470; and (3) the real properties commonly known as 22012 Crestline Trail, Santa Clarita, CA 91309 and 320 West Lime Avenue, Monrovia, CA 91016, pursuant to CCP section 488.315 and/or 488.415.

The property to be attached is adequately described.

E. Conclusion

Pawnee’s applications for right to attach orders are granted against THB and Tiffany in the amount of 23,430.17. Pawnee’s application is denied as to Ian. Pawnee has not submitted proposed right to attach orders on the Judicial Council form and is ordered to do so within two court days or it will be deemed waived. No writ of attachment shall issue for any Defendant until Pawnee posts a $10,000 bond as to that Defendant.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where PAWNEE LEASING CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer WITTLIN IRWIN