Global Assets Liens & Foreclosures, LLC v. Los Angeles Wellness Center, et al

Case Number

24CV02641

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 12/10/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Plaintiff Global Assets Liens & Foreclosure, LLC’s Application for Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment as to Defendant Los Angeles Wellness Center

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Global Assets Liens & Foreclosures, LLC: Michael   J. Muse-Fisher, Aaron M. Levine, Joshua Su

For Defendant Los Angeles Wellness Center: Arthur D. Hodge

For Defendant Erba Delivery-1: No Appearance

                       

RULING

For the following reasons, the application for right to attach order and order for issuance of writ of attachment as to Los Angeles Wellness Center is denied.

Background

This action commenced on May 13, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by Plaintiff Global Assets Liens & Foreclosures, LLC (Global Assets) against Defendants Los Angeles Wellness Center (LAWC), Greenhouse Organics, Inc. (GO), and Erba Delivery-1 (ED1) (collectively “Defendants”), for: (1) Breach of Written Contract, (2) Account Stated, (3) Open Account, and (4) Goods Sold and Delivered.

As alleged in the complaint, Plaintiff seeks damages against Defendants of at least $297.540.13 for unpaid invoices for the sale and delivery of various cannabis products that became due from Defendants within the past 18 months. (Compl., ¶ 11.) Global Assets is the assignee and owner of the accounts receivable acquired through the East West Bank v. Herbal, Inc. (Case No. 23CV02629) receivership proceedings. (Id. at ¶ 10 & Exh. A.)

GO was dismissed, with prejudice, on August 27, 2024.

LAWC answered the complaint on October 31, 2024, with a general denial and eight affirmative defenses.

On October 3, 2025, Global Assets filed the present application for right to attach order and order for issuance of writ of attachment.

Trial of this matter is scheduled to begin on the same day as the hearing on the present motion.

Analysis

“ ‘The basic purpose of the remedy of attachment . . . is to aid in the collection of a money demand by seizure of property in advance of trial and judgment, as security for eventual satisfaction of the judgment.’ ” [Citations.]” (Commercial & Farmers Nat. Bk. v. Hetrick (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 158, 164.)

“In California ‘ “attachment” ’ is a purely statutory remedy [citation] activated by a Plaintiff, under which the property of a Defendant is ‘ “seized” ’ by legal process in advance of trial and judgment.” (Randone v. Appellate Department (1971) 5 Cal.3d 536, 543.)

“Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, the Plaintiff may apply pursuant to this article for a right to attach order and a writ of attachment by filing an application for the order and writ with the Court in which the action is brought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 484.010.)

“The application shall 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 484.030.)

“(a) At the hearing, the Court shall consider the showing made by the parties appearing and shall issue a right to attach order, which shall state the amount to be secured by the attachment determined by the Court in accordance with Section 483.015 or 483.020, if it finds all of the following:

“(1) The claim upon which the attachment is based is one upon which an attachment may be issued.

“(2) The Plaintiff has established the probable validity of the claim upon which the attachment is based.

“(3) The attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery on the claim upon which the attachment is based.

“(4) The amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 484.090, subd. (a).)

“(a) Except as otherwise provided by statute, an 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) exclusive of costs, interest, and attorney’s fees.

“(b) An attachment may not be issued on a claim which is secured by any interest in real property arising from agreement, statute, or other rule of law (including any mortgage or deed of trust of realty and any statutory, common law, or equitable lien on real property, but excluding any security interest in fixtures subject to Division 9 (commencing with Section 9101) of the Commercial Code). However, an attachment may be issued where the claim was originally so secured but, without any act of the Plaintiff or the person to whom the security was given, the security has become valueless or has decreased in value to less than the amount then owing on the claim, in which event the amount to be secured by the attachment shall not exceed the lesser of the amount of the decrease or the difference between the value of the security and the amount then owing on the claim.

“(c) If the action is against a Defendant who is a natural person, an attachment may be issued only on a claim which arises out of the conduct by the Defendant of a trade, business, or profession. An attachment may not be issued on a claim against a Defendant who is a natural person if the claim is based on the sale or lease of property, a license to use property, the furnishing of services, or the loan of money where the property sold or leased, or licensed for use, the services furnished, or the money loaned was used by the Defendant primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

“(d) An attachment may be issued pursuant to this section whether or not other forms of relief are demanded.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 483.010; italics added.)

“Under the Attachment Law, “ ‘[w]hether or not the Defendant appears in opposition, the Plaintiff has the burden of proving (1) that his claim is one upon which an attachment may be issued and (2) the probable validity of such claim.’ ” [Citation.]” (Bank of America v. Salinas Nissan, Inc. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 260, 271.)

“ ‘[A]ttachment is a harsh remedy at best in that an alleged debtor loses control of his property before the claim against him is adjudicated. This being so, the provisions relating thereto should be strictly construed.’ ” [Citation.]” (J.C. Peacock, Inc. v. Hasko (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 363, 365.)

Attachment is a pre-trial remedy. Here, as noted above, trial is scheduled to begin. Should Global Assets prevail, they are free to execute on the judgment, making attachment redundant and unnecessary. Should Global Assets not prevail, there is no possibility of proving the probable validity of its claim. As such, the motion will be denied.