This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/20/2021 at 02:20:13 (UTC).

THE PRINT LAB, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS PINK DOLPHIN CLOTHING, LLC, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 02/24/2021 THE PRINT LAB, INC , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against PINK DOLPHIN CLOTHING, LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Van Nuys Courthouse East located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SHIRLEY K. WATKINS. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0238

  • Filing Date:

    02/24/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

SHIRLEY K. WATKINS

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

THE PRINT LAB INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Defendants

BARHAGI CENA

KHAILA NEIMA

PINK DOLPHIN CLOTHING LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BERKE MICHAEL N.

Defendant Attorney

NOWLAND THOMAS F

 

Court Documents

Notice of Settlement

9/13/2021: Notice of Settlement

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

8/31/2021: 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

8/31/2021: Right to Attach Order After Hearing and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment

Undertaking

8/24/2021: Undertaking

Undertaking

8/24/2021: Undertaking

Proof of Service by Mail

8/12/2021: Proof of Service by Mail

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT (CCP 484.040); ...) OF 07/26/2021

7/26/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT (CCP 484.040); ...) OF 07/26/2021

Declaration - DECLARATION THE PRINT LAB, INCS OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT NEIMA KHAILAS CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION

7/22/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION THE PRINT LAB, INCS OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT NEIMA KHAILAS CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION

Reply - REPLY THE PRINT LAB, INCS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT AND RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER AGAINST PINK DOLPHIN CLOTHING, LLC

7/22/2021: Reply - REPLY THE PRINT LAB, INCS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT AND RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER AGAINST PINK DOLPHIN CLOTHING, LLC

Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION (TO APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT)

7/19/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION (TO APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT)

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

6/18/2021: Application for Right to Attach Order, Temporary Protective Order, etc.

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

6/18/2021: Notice of Application and Hearing for Writ of Attachment (CCP 484.040)

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

6/18/2021: Application for Right to Attach Order, Temporary Protective Order, etc.

Answer

6/2/2021: Answer

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

4/9/2021: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT (1ST)

2/26/2021: Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT (1ST)

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

3/12/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

2/24/2021: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

34 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/15/2021
  • Hearing11/15/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department T at 6230 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys, CA 91401; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/13/2021
  • DocketNotice of Settlement; Filed by The Print Lab, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2021
  • DocketRight to Attach Order After Hearing and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment; Filed by The Print Lab, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2021
  • DocketRight to Attach Order After Hearing and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment; Filed by The Print Lab, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2021
  • DocketRight to Attach Order After Hearing and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment; Filed by The Print Lab, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2021
  • DocketUndertaking; Filed by The Print Lab, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2021
  • DocketUndertaking; Filed by The Print Lab, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff); The Print Lab, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff); The Print Lab, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2021
  • DocketUndertaking; Filed by The Print Lab, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2021
  • Docketat 3:42 PM in Department T, Shirley K. Watkins, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
34 More Docket Entries
  • 03/17/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by The Print Lab, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by The Print Lab, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by The Print Lab, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2021
  • DocketAmended Complaint ( (1st)); Filed by The Print Lab, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by The Print Lab, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by The Print Lab, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by The Print Lab, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by The Print Lab, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 21VECV00238 Hearing Date: July 26, 2021 Dept: T

\r\n\r\n

\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n

The Print Lab,\r\n Inc.,

\r\n

\r\n

Plaintiff,

\r\n

\r\n

vs.

\r\n

\r\n

Pink Dolphin\r\n Clothing, LLC, et al.

\r\n

\r\n

Defendants.

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

CASE NO: 21VECV00238

\r\n

\r\n

[TENTATIVE]\r\n ORDER RE:

\r\n

APPLICATIONS\r\n FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT

\r\n

\r\n

Dept. T

\r\n

8:30 a.m.

\r\n

July 26, 2021

\r\n
\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[TENTATIVE] ORDER: The Applications\r\nfor a Right to Attach Order and a Writ of Attachment are GRANTED. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 489.210 and\r\n489.220, Plaintiff is ordered to post a $10,000 undertaking per defendant before\r\nthe Writs will issue.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n
  1. Introduction\r\n

    This is a breach of contract action\r\narising out of a breach of a contract and guaranty agreement for merchandise\r\nand clothing.

    On April 15, 2021, Plaintiff The\r\nPrint Lab, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed its operative second amended complaint (“SAC”)\r\nagainst Pink Dolphin Clothing, LLC (“Pink Dolphin”), Neima Khaila (“Khaila”),\r\nCena Barhagi (“Barhagi”) (collectively “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 20.\r\nPlaintiff alleges that Pink Dolphin breached the sales contract and Khaila and\r\nBarhagi breached their guaranties of the agreement. According to the SAC,\r\nDefendants owe $121,760.04 plus interest, costs, and attorney fees.

    Plaintiff now requests a right to\r\nattach order and a writ of attachment against Defendants’ property.

    Defendants oppose, making five\r\narguments: (1) Plaintiff did not file a supporting memorandum of points and\r\nauthorities; (2) Plaintiff did not meet all requirements; (3) Plaintiff is\r\nseeking triple recovery; (4); Khaila and Barhagi’s property is subject to\r\nexemptions under Code of Civil Procedure section 487.020; and (5) Plaintiff did\r\nnot post an undertaking.

  2. Discussion

    As required under Code of Civil\r\nProcedure section 484.040, the court record and the proofs of service for the\r\nSAC and notice and application for the writ of attachment show proper service\r\nupon Defendants through their counsel.

    As a threshold matter, the Court\r\nrejects Defendants’ argument that a failure to file a memorandum of points and\r\nauthorities is fatal to Plaintiff’s requests. Although California Rules of\r\nCourt, rules 3.1112, 3.1113 and 3.1114 indicate that a memorandum of points and\r\nauthorities is required here, Defendants cite no supporting authority holding\r\nthat the Court is compelled to deny Plaintiff’s applications. Instead, the\r\nauthority provides discretionary authority. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule\r\n3.1113(a) [“A party filing a motion, except for a motion listed in rule 3.1114,\r\nmust serve and file a supporting memorandum. The court may construe the\r\nabsence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion or special demurrer is\r\nnot meritorious and cause for its denial and, in the case of a demurrer, as a\r\nwaiver of all grounds not supported.”], emphasis added.) The Court similarly\r\nrejects Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff has not shown that it satisfies the\r\nrequirements for a writ to be granted based on a failure to include a\r\nmemorandum of points and authorities. The other filed documents can provide\r\nsufficient details to show this.

    As required by Code of Civil\r\nProcedure section 483.010, the application sufficiently shows that the claim is\r\nnot secured by real property and the claim is for a minimum of $500.

    As required by Code of Civil\r\nProcedure section 483.010, the amount of Plaintiff’s claim is fixed and\r\nascertainable. The amount Defendants owe under the contract and guaranties is $121,760.04\r\nplus interest, costs, and attorney fees. As of the time of the application,\r\nthis amounts to $121,760.54 in damages, $14,611.68 in interest (accruing at\r\n$33.36 per day), and $750.00 in court costs, for a total of $137,122.22.\r\n(Stewart Decl. ¶¶ 9, 12-14.)

    Per Code of Civil Procedure section 484.090,\r\na claim must have “probable validity.” Probable validity is where “it is more\r\nlikely than not that the plaintiff will obtain a judgment against the defendant\r\non that claim.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 481.190.) Plaintiff has the burden of proof\r\non this requirement. Plaintiff submits a declaration to show: there was a valid\r\ncontract (several sales invoices) that was guaranteed by Khaila and Barhagi; Plaintiff\r\nperformed its contractual obligations; Defendants did not pay the full amount\r\nowed; Defendants are obligated to pay the remaining amount; and Defendants have\r\nnot paid the remaining amount. (Stewart Decl. ¶¶ 4-14, Ex. A-C.) With this\r\nevidence, Plaintiff shows probable validity of its claims. Defendants oppose\r\ncontending that the Court must consider the relative merits of the positions of\r\nthe respective parties. However, Defendants do not identify any defenses that\r\nplausibly undermine probable validity.

    The Court rejects Defendants’\r\nargument that the applications seek a triple recovery because each application\r\nseeks $137,122.22 against each named defendant. According to the contract and\r\nthe guaranties, Plaintiff is entitled to seek its damages against any of the\r\nnamed defendants. Plaintiff is entitled to pursue a writ of attachment against\r\neach defendant in the same amount, notwithstanding that satisfaction of the\r\namount in damages will extinguish the claim. In other words, Plaintiff is\r\nalready prevented from obtaining more in damages than its claim. Defendants’\r\nreliance on Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686, 701-705, a\r\ncase not involving a writ of attachment, is unavailing.

    The Court rejects Defendants’\r\nargument that some of Khaila and Barhagi’s property is subject to statutory\r\nexemptions under Code of Civil Procedure section 487.020 because certain\r\nproperty is necessary for their personal support and livelihood. It is true\r\nthat Plaintiff’s application lists as property to be attached includes\r\n“personal property, equipment, [and] motor vehicles.” (Application ¶ 9(c).) The\r\ndeclarations submitted by Khaila and Barhagi are conclusory without the\r\ninclusion of a financial statement meeting the requirements of Code of Civil\r\nProcedure section 703.530.

    Per Code of Civil Procedure section\r\n489.210 and 489.220, Plaintiff is ordered to post a $10,000 undertaking. The\r\nfailure to post an undertaking with the application is not fatal to the\r\nrequests. Plaintiff can do so now before the Court issues the writ. The Court\r\nrejects Defendants’ request to increase the amount to the amount of claims.\r\nDefendants provide no explanation why a larger bond is necessary.

    Accordingly, the applications for s\r\nfor right to attach order and writs of attachment as to Pink Dolphin Clothing,\r\nLLC, Neima Khaila, and Cena Barhagi are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to submit\r\na $10,000 undertaking per defendant per Code of Civil Procedure sections\r\n489.210 and 489.220.

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

IT IS SO ORDERED,\r\n____________________ TO GIVE NOTICE.

\r\n\r\n'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where THE PRINT LAB INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where PINK DOLPHIN CLOTHING LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BERKE MICHAEL N