Application for right to attach order and order for issuance of writ of attachment
All counsel and self-represented parties appearing remotely must check-in online through the court’s civil video appearance website at Civil Remote Hearings | Superior Court of California | County of Orange (occourts.org) before the designated hearing time. Once the online check-in is completed, participants will be prompted to join the courtroom’s Zoom hearing session. Participants will initially be directed to a virtual waiting room pending the start of their specific video hearing. Check-in instructions and instructional video are available at Civil Remote Hearings | Superior Court of California | County of Orange (occourts.org) The Court’s “Appearance Procedures and Information--Civil Unlimited and Complex” and “Guidelines for Remote Appearances” also are available at Civil Remote Hearings | Superior Court of California | County of Orange (occourts.org) Those procedures and guidelines will be strictly enforced.
Public Access: The courtroom remains open for all evidentiary and non-evidentiary proceedings. Members of the media or public may obtain access to law and motion hearings in this department by either coming to the department at the designated hearing time or contacting the courtroom clerk at (657) 622-5618 to obtain login information. For remote appearances by the media or public, please contact the courtroom clerk 24 hours in advance so as not to interrupt the hearings.
NO FILMING, BROADCASTING, PHOTOGRAPHY, OR ELECTRONIC RECORDING IS PERMITTED OF THE VIDEO SESSION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 1.150 AND ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT RULE 180.
# Case Name Tentative
2. 2026-1545921 Plaintiff King Shin Ship Management Co., Limited’s (“Plaintiff”) King Shin Ship application for right to attach order and order for issuance of writ of Management attachment after hearing, against defendant Beyond Liquidity, LLC Co. vs. Beyond (“Defendant”), is denied. Loan 1 LLC Procedural Issues The Court declines to consider the new evidence Plaintiff submitted on reply. (See ROA 94.) Absent exceptional circumstances, new evidence is generally not allowed on reply, because of the “unfairness to the opponent of not being able to address the new matter raised in a reply.” (Maleti v. Wickers (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 181, 227; see also Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2026) ¶ 9:106.1.) Additionally, the new evidence has not been sufficiently authenticated. (
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?”
The Court declines to rule on Defendant’s evidentiary objections (ROA 92), because they are not material to the disposition of the application.
Merits
Plaintiff moves, under CCP section 483.010, for the issuance of a writ of attachment against Defendant in the amount of $100,000.00. Defendant proffers evidence that Debenture No. 2 includes an arbitration provision, which provides, in relevant part, that “any claim, dispute, or controversy of whatever nature arising out of or relating to this Debenture, including, without limitation, any action or claim based on tort, contract, or statute . . . shall be resolved by final and binding arbitration ... before a single arbitrator ... selected from and administered by JAMS Inc.” (ROA 85—Ye Decl. at ¶ 3, Exh. 1 [Debenture No. 2 at § 15].) Additionally, Defendant has filed a motion to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings. (ROA 67.) Defendant contends Plaintiff has failed to meet the standard required for obtaining provisional relief when a dispute is subject to arbitration.
CCP section 1281.8 provides, in relevant part, that: “A party to an arbitration agreement may file in the court in the county in which an arbitration proceeding is pending, or if an arbitration proceeding has not commenced, in any proper court, an application for a provisional remedy in connection with an arbitrable controversy, but only upon the ground that the award to which the applicant may be entitled may be rendered ineffectual without provisional relief.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.8, subd. (a), emphasis added.)
There is no dispute that Defendant is in the process of selling certain real property in Texas and intends to use the proceeds to repay its creditors. Plaintiff has not shown that the arbitration award to which it may be entitled would be “rendered ineffectual” without provisional relief. The application is denied without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking renewal if such facts can be stated.
Defendant shall give notice of the ruling.
3. 2021-1231301 The Court grants Cross-Defendant Yama Gulham’s unopposed Gulham vs. Motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the third cause of action Younge for malicious prosecution in Cross-Complainants Michael A. Younge and Amany Simmonds’ Cross-Complaint.
Younge and Simmonds have 15 days leave to amend.
Younge and Simmonds take issue with the lack of any meet and confer effort. But the statute contains no provision for compelling compliance with the meet and confer requirement, unlike the meet and confer requirement in the discovery process. Additionally, the failure to sufficiently meet and confer is not grounds to grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (CCP §439(a)(4). “A determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to grant or deny the motion for