APPLICATION AND HEARING FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER
SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC25629903 - June 29, 2026 Hearing date: June 29, 2026 Case number: CGC25629903 Case title: JERILYN NEGVESKY VS. AMIN SAMADIAN ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25629903 | Case Title: | | JERILYN NEGVESKY VS. AMIN SAMADIAN ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-06-29 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | APPLICATION AND HEARING FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for Monday, June 29, 2026, Line 11, PLAINTIFF JERILYN NEGVESKY D.D.S.'s APPLICATION AND HEARING FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER.
Plaintiff Jerilyn Negvesky D.D.S.'s application for a right to attach order and writ of attachment is denied. Attachment is purely a statutory remedy, and the court strictly applies the Attachment Law. (See Jordan-Lyon Productions, Ltd. v. Cineplex Odeon Corp. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1466.)
Code of Civil Procedure, section 484.090, subdivision (a), provides that "the court . . . 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."
In determining "probable validity" of the claim under subdivision (a)(2), the court must weigh the merits. "A plaintiff seeking a right to attach order must show the probable validity. A claim has probable validity where it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will obtain a judgment against the defendant on that claim." (Kemp Bros. Construction, Inc. v. Titan Electric Corp. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1476 [simplified].) The court may evaluate the merits on the papers, or may receive evidence at a hearing for good cause shown. (Code Civ. Proc., section 484.090, subd. (d).) The court must "consider the relative merits of the positions of the respective parties and make a determination of the probable outcome of the litigation." (
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?”
Here, Negvesky brings contract claims against the purchaser of her dental practice, who she claims has defaulted on his payment obligation. After the purchaser, Amin Samadian D.D.S. Inc. ("Samadian Inc."), fell behind on its payment obligation, the parties entered into a settlement agreement ("Settlement Agreement"), found at Exhibit D of the Negvesky Declaration. This agreement established the amount due, created payment terms, and required Samadian Inc. to execute a security agreement, granting Negvesky a security interest in the assets used by Samadian Inc. in the dental practice. (Settlement Agreement, para. 3.)
A security agreement was executed. (Samadian Decl., Ex. B.) Amin Samadian, D.D.S., the owner of Samadian Inc. and the defendant against whom Negvesky seeks an attachment order, provided a Guaranty of Note. (Negvesky Declaration, Ex. F.) (Part 1 of 2, tentative ruling continues in Part 2 of 2) | |