On 06/24/2019 REBAS, INC , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA TOYOTA-LIFT OF LOS ANGELES filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MATRIX INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE, INC , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
REBAS INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA TOYOTA-LIFT OF LOS ANGELES
MATRIX INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
1/15/2020: Notice of Application and Hearing for Writ of Attachment (CCP 484.040) - Notice of Application and Hearing for Writ of Attachment (CCP 484.040)
1/15/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
1/15/2020: Application for Right to Attach Order, Temporary Protective Order, etc. - Application for Right to Attach Order, Temporary Protective Order, etc.
1/17/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
8/19/2019: Answer - Answer
7/19/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service
6/24/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint
6/24/2019: Complaint - Complaint
6/24/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
6/24/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order
6/24/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
Hearing06/27/2022 at 10:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of ServiceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing12/21/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing03/03/2020 at 01:30 PM in Department 85 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Application for Writ of Attachment (CCP 484.040)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Application for Writ of Attachment (CCP 484.040) scheduled for 02/13/2020 at 09:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 85 Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion was rescheduled to 03/03/2020 01:30 PMRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Application and Hearing for Writ of Attachment (CCP 484.040); Filed by: Rebas, Inc., a California corporation dba Toyota-Lift of Los Angeles (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketApplication for Right to Attach Order, Temporary Protective Order, etc. Filed by: Rebas, Inc., a California corporation dba Toyota-Lift of Los Angeles (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: Rebas, Inc., a California corporation dba Toyota-Lift of Los Angeles (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketHearing on Application for Writ of Attachment (CCP 484.040) scheduled for 02/13/2020 at 09:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 85Read MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by: Matrix International Textile, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Rebas, Inc., a California corporation dba Toyota-Lift of Los Angeles (Plaintiff); As to: Matrix International Textile, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant); Service Cost: 69.50; Service Cost Waived: NoRead MoreRead Less
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/21/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 06/27/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Rebas, Inc., a California corporation dba Toyota-Lift of Los Angeles (Plaintiff); As to: Matrix International Textile, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Rebas, Inc., a California corporation dba Toyota-Lift of Los Angeles (Plaintiff); As to: Matrix International Textile, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Rebas, Inc., a California corporation dba Toyota-Lift of Los Angeles (Plaintiff); As to: Matrix International Textile, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk CourthouseRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: 19STLC05953 Hearing Date: March 03, 2020 Dept: 85
Rebas, Inc. v. Matrix International Textile, Inc., et al., 19STLC05953
Tentative decision on application for right to attach order: denied
Plaintiff Rebas, Inc., dba Toyota-Lift of Los Angeles (“Toyota-Lift”) applies for a right to attach order against Defendant Matrix International Textile (“Matrix”).
The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply, and renders the following tentative decision.
A. Statement of the Case
Plaintiff Rebas commenced this action on June 24, 2019, alleging causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) open book account; (3) account stated; and (4) reasonable value of equipment leased. The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows.
Toyota-Lift is a provider of new and used forklifts in Southern California. Toyota-Lift offers for sale and lease to its clients a full selection of superior forklifts, aerial lift equipment, and utility vehicles.
On March 2, 2011, Toyota-Lift and Matrix entered into a written Master Lease Agreement, including related ancillary agreements (the “Agreement”) whereby Toyota-Lift agreed to lease forklifts, and provide additional equipment and services (the “Equipment”) to Matrix, in exchange for Matrix’s promise and obligation to pay agreed upon forklift lease rates and additional charges to Toyota-Lift.
Beginning on September 15, 2017 through June 27, 2018, Toyota-Lift had issued its invoices to Matrix, but Matrix failed to pay Toyota-Lift for the leasing of the Equipment. The sum of Matrix’s indebtedness to Toyota-Lift is in the amount of $10,641.33. Toyota-Lift was able to recover possession of the leased forklifts, but Matrix has not paid its outstanding balance. In spite of Toyota-Lift’s collection efforts, Matrix has failed and refused and continue to fail and refuse to pay the sums due and owing.
2. Course of Proceedings
According to a proof of service on file, Matrix was served with the Summons and Complaint via substituted service on July 2, 2019. The documents were thereafter mailed on July 8, 2019. Matrix’s counsel was served with the moving papers via mail on January 15, 2020.
B. Applicable Law
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).
Except in unlawful detainer actions, 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.
C. Statement of Facts
1. Plaintiff’s Evidence
Based on Matrix's cancellation, Toyota-Lift began to issue its rental invoices (“Invoices”) to Matrix in the sum of the stated rental option at $1,039.20, plus applicable sales tax for a total invoice price of $1,137.92. Pineda Decl. ¶13. From December 11, 2017 through June 27, 2018, Toyota-Lift issued its invoices to Matrix, but Matrix failed to pay for its use and operation of the Forklift throughout that period of time. Pineda Decl. ¶14.
The total principal sum of all invoices was in the sum of $10,241.29. Pineda Decl. ¶15, Ex. 8. Matrix failed to pay said sum and based on Matrix's non-payment of the rental invoices, Toyota-Lift recovered the subject-Forklift on August 17, 2018. Pineda Decl. ¶15, Ex. 8.
Separate from the subject-Forklift, but related to the Agreement, Toyota-Lift had also previously invoiced (on September 15, 2017) Matrix for the ordered repair of a separate forklift (serial #52244). Pineda Decl. ¶16. Toyota-Lift did service the separate forklift and issued its invoice in the sum of $400.04, but Matrix failed to pay the invoice. Pineda Decl. ¶16, Ex. 8.
In April 2018, during correspondence between Toyota-Lift and Matrix, Matrix did not dispute its ongoing use, possession and control of the subject-Forklift, but merely referred to the agreed-upon fact that the quotation for a replacement forklift was simply never signed. Pineda Decl. ¶21, Ex. 9.
Toyota-Lift incurred estimated attorney fees in the amount of $3,000 and $370 in costs related to the instant application. Pineda Decl. ¶22.
2. Defendant’s Evidence
In June 2019, Matrix’s Controller, Fara Sonboli (“Sonboli”), became aware that the Equipment Lease was nearing expiration. Sonboli Decl. ¶¶ 2, 6. Matrix had previously dealt with Toyota-Lift in various leases of vehicles/equipment. Sonboli Decl. ¶6.
In many of these previous instances, when the original leases had reached expiration dates Matrix negotiated with Toyota-Lift per quotes provided by Toyota-Lift to replace original older-model forklifts with new models for a new lease term. Sonboli Decl. ¶6. In all such instances, the parties’ custom and practice had been for a representative of Toyota-Lift to bring applicable paperwork to Matrix’s business office for signature to confirm the new lease of replacement forklift. Sonboli Decl. ¶6. In order to ensure that Matrix continued to have available a full fleet of forklifts pending delivery of the replacement forklift, the parties’ custom and practice had always been for the original lease to be extended by Toyota-Lift to allow Matrix to maintain possession of the old forklift until the time of delivery of its replacement. At that time, the old forklift would be picked up by Toyota-Lift, and the term of the lease for the replacement forklift would commence. Sonboli Decl. ¶6.
The parties’ custom and practice in negotiating replacement leases for newer forklifts to schedule signing meetings close to the date of expiration of the original lease term. In this way, Matrix received the full benefit of the original lease term which might otherwise arise by early pickup of old forklift. This practice further avoided placement of Matrix in a position of double responsibility to Toyota-Lift from premature delivery of a new forklift while the old forklift’s lease remained in effect. Sonboli Decl. ¶6.
At no time in these previous transactions did Matrix agree to have any lease for an original forklift converted into a month-to-month rental agreement pending delivery of a replacement forklift. At no time prior to the challenged invoices involved in the instant lawsuit did Toyota-Lift ever submit to Matrix any billing or invoices for purported month-to-month rental charges on any forklift following expiration of a lease for such forklift. Sonboli Decl. ¶6.
In early 2017, Sonboli contacted Toyota-Lift’s authorized leasing representative, Richard Lovell (“Lovell”), and informed him that Matrix as usual desired to enter into a replacement lease with Plaintiff for a newer-model forklift to replace the lease for the Forklift. Sonboli Decl. ¶7, Ex. 1. Lovell confirmed the quote for the replacement forklift and scheduled the meeting for the signing of the quote for June 12, 2017. Sonboli Decl. ¶7, Ex. 2. Lovell stated that carrying the meeting over to June 12 would pose no problem with Toyota-Lift with regard to the expiration date of the previous lease, and that he had obtained express approval from Toyota-Lift that the old lease would be carried forward to accommodate the June 12 meeting date. Sonboli Decl. ¶7, Ex. 2.
At the June 12, 2017 meeting, Sonboli personally executed and approved Toyota-Lift’s quote/agreement for new lease of later-model forklift to replace the Forklift in the presence of Lovell. Sonboli Decl. ¶8. While Sonboli requested a copy of her signature and the agreement from Lovell, he stated that the paperwork still had to be run through Toyota-Lift’s office channels for its countersignature, and he would send a full copy of the contract once the additional signature was obtained. Sonboli Decl. ¶8. Lovell stated that he believed that the exchange of the forklifts would likely take place somewhere between ten and 14 weeks later. Sonboli Decl. ¶8. Lovell represented to Sonboli that the Equipment Lease would remain in effect and extended as to time to cover the Forklift until such time as Toyota-Lift delivered the new forklift and picked up the Forklift. Sonboli Decl. ¶8. Lovell left Matrix’s offices with the original lease agreement for the new forklift bearing Sonboli’s signature. Sonboli Decl. ¶8.
From June through December 2017, Sonboli attempted on multiple occasions to contact Lovell concerning the status of processing the lease for the replacement forklift. Sonboli Decl. ¶9. Lovell initially indicated the paperwork was being processed through Toyota-Lift’s related financing department. Sonboli Decl. ¶9. Lovell proved to be unavailable upon later attempts by Sonboli to communicate with him, and she learned from other personnel that Lovell had left the company. Sonboli Decl. ¶9.
Sonboli thereafter made multiple attempts to contact other personnel of Toyota-Lift who could determine the status of the new lease agreement and when the replacement forklift would be delivered and the Forklift taken away. Sonboli Decl. ¶9. Several of Sonboli’s communications were routed to Vanessa Pineda (“Pineda”) and Sonboli repeatedly informed her of the previous events and arrangement with Lovell. Sonboli Decl. ¶9. Sonboli repeatedly asked that Toyota-Lift and Pineda locate the contract paperwork and complete the delivery of the replacement forklift. Sonboli Decl. ¶9, Exs. 3, 4. Toyota-Lift and Pineda did not produce any copy of the quote/agreement or deliver the replacement forklift. Sonboli Decl. ¶9.
Matrix was never provided with any notification from Toyota-Lift of any intention to cancel the agreed-upon extension of the Equipment Lease or to convert it into a month-to-month rental agreement. Nor was Matrix afforded any advance notice or requested to provide any further agreement. Sonboli Decl. ¶10.
Instead, Matrix received a series of invoices allegedly billing for rental amounts on the Forklift for periods commencing in December 2017. Sonboli Decl. ¶10. Sonboli contacted Matrix on multiple occasions to protest the invoices and insist that Toyota-Life reverse the invoices and comply with the terms of the quote/agreement signed on June 12, 2017. Sonboli Decl. ¶10, Ex. 5. Toyota-Lift did not retract the invoices. Instead, on August 17, 2018 Toyota-Lift entered Matrix’s warehouse premises without advance appointment or permission and took the Forklift without making delivery of any new forklift. Sonboli Decl. ¶10.
Plaintiff Toyota-Lift applies for a right to attach orders against Defendant Matrix in the amount of $14,011.33, which includes estimated attorney fees of $3,000 and estimated costs of $370.
Toyota-Lift asserts that Matrix’s opposition brief was untimely served and should be disregarded in its entirety. Toyota-Lift claims that Matrix was required, pursuant to CCP section 1005(b), to serve its opposition no later than February 19, 2020 and did not do so until February 25, 2020. Reply at 1-2.
Toyota-Lift is wrong. CCP section 1005(b) expressly states that it only applies if there is no other applicable statutory deadline for filing. A defendant who opposes issuance of an order for writ of attachment must file and serve a notice of opposition and supporting affidavit not later than five court days prior to the date set for hearing. CCP §484.050(e). Matrix was required to serve its opposition by February 25, 2020, five court days before the hearing date of March 3, 2020 and Toyota-Lift concedes that it did so. Toyota-Lift received the opposition on February 26, 2020 and its reply was not due until February 28, 2020. CCP §484.060(c).
Matrix’s opposition was timely.
2. A Claim Based on a Contract
Toyota-Lift’s claim purports to be based on the Equipment Lease, which contains a provision stating that any failure to return the Forklift results in an automatic conversion of the Equipment Lease into a month-to-month rental. The Equipment Lease is not in evidence because Matrix’s objections to the Pineda declaration were sustained.
Toyota-Lift’s claim also is based on the invoices for Matrix’s obligation to pay monthly rental payments for its continued use of the Forklift after the expiration of the Equipment Lease, as well as the service fee for the separate forklift. Pineda Decl. ¶¶ 11-13, 16, Ex. 8. The invoices are in evidence, but there is no basis for the claim without an underlying agreement.
Toyota-Lift has not shown that its claim is based on a contract.
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).
Toyota-Lift provides the Invoices, which establish the monthly rental payments owed by Matrix for its continued use of the Forklift, as well as the amount owed for the service and repair of the separate forklift. Pineda Decl. Ex. 8. The Invoices reflect that the total amount owed by Matrix is $10,641.33. Pineda Decl. ¶20, Ex. 8.
The $10,641.33 allegedly due under the Invoices is fixed and readily ascertainable. Toyota-Lift also claims estimated costs in the amount of $370 and attorney fees in the amount of $3,000. Pineda Decl. ¶22. Toyota-Lift fails to support these costs with an attorney declaration and they are denied.
4. Probability of Success
Toyota-Lift asserts a probability of success on its claim for breach of contract because the evidence shows that Matrix’s Equipment Lease expired and automatically converted to a month-to-month rental agreement after Matrix failed to sign a quotation to extend the Equipment Lease or otherwise renew the lease. App. at 8; Reply at 2. Toyota-Lift asserts that Matrix breached the ensuing month-to-month rental agreement by failing to make any of the payments due and owing. App. at 8; Reply at 2.
Toyota-Lift’s argument is not well-taken. Apart from the fact that the Equipment Lease is not in evidence, Matrix provides evidence that it was the customary practice between the parties to renegotiate with Toyota-Lift per quotes provided by Toyota-Lift to replace original older-model forklifts with new models for a new lease term and that the original lease would be extended by Toyota-Lift to allow Matrix to maintain possession of the old forklift until delivery of its replacement. At that time, the old forklift would be picked up by Toyota-Lift, and the term of the new lease for the replacement forklift would commence. Sonboli Decl. ¶6. Although not expressly stated, Matrix suggests that no further payment would be due under the lease when it was extended in this manner. Matrix’s evidence shows that it followed this customary practice when the Equipment Lease expired and signed a quote/agreement for a new lease on June 12, 2017. Sonboli Decl. ¶8.
Toyota-Lift does not dispute that Matrix intended to enter a new lease with a replacement forklift. Instead, it asserts that Matrix never signed the quote/agreement and failed to present evidence that it entered a new agreement. Pineda Decl. ¶¶ 11-12, Ex. 7. Toyota-Lift admits that, despite Sonboli’s multiple explanations (Sonboli Decl. Exs. 3-5) that Lovell, who since departed Toyota-Lift, possessed the only signed copy of the new quote/agreement, Toyota-Lift unilaterally decided to begin charging Matrix for its ongoing use of the Forklift. Pineda Decl. ¶12.
As Matrix persuasively argues (Opp. at 11-13), Toyota-Lift cannot establish that Matrix breached any contract provision. Toyota-Lift agreed to extend the Equipment Lease pending the commencement of the new agreement. Matrix signed the new lease and expected Toyota-Lift to sign the new lease agreement and deliver a new forklift. Toyota-Lift never did either. Instead, it sat on the new lease, never signing or rejecting it. As a result, Matrix was entitled to rely on the oral extension of the Equipment Lease pursuant to the parties’ custom and practice.
Toyota-Lift also cannot show that Matrix breached any contract by failing to make the monthly payments reflected in the Invoices. Toyota-Lift arbitrarily and without notice converted the Equipment Lease to a month-to-month rental despite the Equipment Lease extension. Opp. at 11-12. Toyota-Lift admits that the extension was valid through December 2017, when it made an “internal decision” to end the extension and convert the Equipment Lease to a month-to-month rental. Pineda Decl. ¶12.
Toyota-Lift provides no basis for making this decision despite acknowledging that Matrix intended to follow previous custom and enter a new agreement. To the extent that Toyota-Lift argues that the Equipment Lease’s provisions automatically converted it to a month-to-month rental, this argument is unavailing. Toyota-Lift agreed to extend the Equipment Lease and purported to terminate it. Toyota-Lift’s failure to locate the signed quote/agreement does not constitute a failure by Matrix to abide by the lease, and Matrix was not obligated to make monthly payments when Toyota-Lift unilaterally decided to begin charging them. Toyota-Lift was required to terminate the lease extension first in order to convert the lease to a month-to-month rental.
Toyota-Lift has not shown a probability of success on its claim for breach of contract.
The application for a right to attach order is denied.
 Toyota-Lift fails to provide tabs for its courtesy copy exhibits and its counsel is admonished to do so for all future filings.
 Matrix failed to lodge a courtesy copy of its opposition in violation of the Presiding Judge’s General Order Re: Mandatory Electronic Filing. Its counsel is admonished to provide courtesy copies in all future filings.
 The court has ruled on the court’s printed out copy of Matrix’s evidentiary objections by placing “S” for sustained and “O” for overruled next to the objection and interlineating the court’s copy of the Pineda declaration where an objection was sustained. The court’s hard copies will be available for the parties’ review after the hearing.