DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24617999·sf·Civil·Contract
Hearing 9 months agoGRANTED

RSF SOCIAL INVESTMENT FUND, INC. VS. DWAYNE REDMON ET AL

Application and hearing for right to attach order

Hearing date
Dec 1, 2025
Department
301
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$4,126,754.12$10,000

Parties

PlaintiffRSF SOCIAL INVESTMENT FUND, INC.
DefendantDWAYNE REDMON
DefendantNEXT CHAMP LLC
DefendantMADDIE PIZZA LLC
DefendantEZE PIZZA LLC

Ruling

Matter on the LAW AND MOTION / DISCOVERY Calendar for Monday, Dec-01-2025, LINE 5. 3-PLAINTIFF RSF SOCIAL INVESTMENT FUND, INC.'s, A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, APPLICATION AND HEARING FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER.

As to Defendant Next Champ LLC, Plaintiff RSF Social Investment Fund, Inc.'s application for right to attach order is GRANTED.

"Before an attachment order is issued, the court must find all of the following: (1) the claim upon which the attachment is based is one upon which an attachment may be issued; (2) the applicant 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 request for attachment is based; and (4) the amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero. (Sec. 484.090.) In order to establish the probable validity of its claim, the applicant must show that it is more likely than not it will obtain a judgment against the defendant (or counterdefendant) on its claim. (Sec. 481.190.)" (Lydig Constr., Inc. v. Martinez Steel Corp. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 937, 944.)

Plaintiffs must also show that the amount due is readily ascertainable. (Code of Civ. Proc., section 483.010, subd. (a).) Plaintiffs meet this burden. Plaintiffs have a right to attach property of Defendants Maddie Pizza LLC, Eze Pizza LLC, and Next Champ LLC jointly and severally in the amount of $4,126,754.12 (outstanding sum of loans plus attorney's fees and prejudgment interest). Plaintiffs shall post a $10,000 bond.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) 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.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@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.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery 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. =(301/BZ) | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share