Application For Right To Attach Order
Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Tuesday, June 30, 2026, Line 11. Plaintiff Golden State Warriors, LLC's Application For Right To Attach Order is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The Attachment Law is subject to strict construction. (See Pacific Decision Sciences Corp. v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1106.) When the defendant has yet to appear in the action, the party moving for a prejudgment attachment must personally serve on the defendant a copy of the summons and complaint, as well as "[a] notice of application and hearing" and "a copy of the application and of any affidavit in support of the application." (Code of Civil Procedure sections 484.040; 482.070(d).)
Here, it is undisputed that Defendant had not yet appeared when this motion was noticed and Plaintiff did not personally serve the attachment papers on Defendant. The request for prejudgment attachment, therefore, is not properly before the court at this time. True, Defendant's counsel agreed Plaintiff could electronically serve the attachment papers on her and, after they did so, she acknowledged receipt. But the right to personal service belongs to the party, not counsel, and here there is no evidence Defendant specifically agreed to waive personal service in favor of electronic service on its counsel.
Plaintiff contends personal service should not be required where Defendant has actual knowledge of the attachment request. Plaintiff cites no apposite authority for the proposition. In fact, the court must strictly construe the Attachment Law and the relevant statutes clearly provide for personal service in this context. Proof of personal service lacking, the court cannot consider the request on the merits. There can be no serious doubt that parties seeking pre-judgment attachments must turn square corners.
Here, Plaintiff moved for an attachment order prior to Defendant appearing. Plaintiff must demonstrate it personally served the attachment papers on Defendant before the court can consider the merits of the request. The record contains no evidence that Plaintiff personally served the papers on Defendant, thus the court cannot consider the request.
Defendant is ordered to prepare a proposed order quoting the above text verbatim and email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the time set for hearing.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address.
=(302/JMQ) | |