Motion to be relieved as counsel of record
(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.”
Plaintiff argues he has shown a probable validity of prevailing on his causes of action for breach of written and oral contract against Ovcharov because Ovcharov’s Telegram messages requesting and confirming each advance, the Alibaba.com order confirmations, and Ovcharov’s later written acknowledgements of the debt constitute a written contract between himself and Ovcharov.
The Telegram messages upon which Plaintiff relies are submitted in a foreign language with no translation. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(g) provides: “Exhibits written in a foreign language must be accompanied by an English translation, certified under oath by a qualified interpreter.” Because the Telegram messages are not accompanied by an English translation by a qualified interpreter, they are inadmissible.
The Alibaba.com order confirmations are emails from Alibaba Customer Service to Plaintiff regarding various payments and orders. Nothing in those emails evidences the existence of any contract between Plaintiff and Ovcharov.
Exhibit 12 is a May 4, 2026 email from an attorney, Pavel Kolmogorov, on behalf of Zorka Impex in response to Plaintiff’s May 1 letter. In that letter, Mr. Kolmogorov asserts that “the obligation at issue” is that of Zorka Impex and not Ovcharov individually and that Zorka Impex “confirms that it has an outstanding financial obligation to Mr. Vitali Khatsko arising from payments made by him in January-February 2023 that were used to fund inventory purchases for Zorka Impex, Inc.’s business operations.” Mr. Kolmogorov proposed that Zorka Impex and Plaintiff enter into a formal written loan agreement to resolve the matter and avoid litigation. This letter does not establish the existence of any contract between Plaintiff and Ovcharov.
Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of any express or implied contract with Ovcharov, the application as to Ovcharov is DENIED.
The Court finds that the May 4 letter does, however, demonstrate that Zorka Impex at least impliedly promised to repay the alleged debt in the principal balance of $42,948.08
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?”