Motion for Right to Attach Order and Writ of Attachment
Dennis Kemble, et al. v. Kelly Rojas, et al., 25CV-0636
Hearing: Motion for Right to Attach Order and Writ of Attachment
Date: June 4, 2026
On September 24, 2025, Dennis Kemble and Gail Kemble filed this action against Kelly Rojas and Alejandro Rojas. 1 The complaint alleges that Kelly had “engaged in a years-long pattern of egregious financial misconduct against Plaintiffs, ... multiple acts of identity theft and illegal receipt ... of hundreds of thousands of dollars in consumer credit and loans.” (Cmpl., ¶ 13.) Defendants have been personally served with the complaint and summons and filed an answer on May 26, 2026.2 Plaintiffs’ first cause of action is alleged against Kelly only and is for financial abuse of an elder.
Plaintiffs seek a right to attach order and writ of attachment against defendant Kelly pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.013, which provides:
Notwithstanding Section 483.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an attachment may be issued in any action for damages pursuant to Section 15657.5 for financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult, as defined in Section 15610.30. The other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure not inconsistent with this article shall govern the issuance of an attachment pursuant to this section. In an application for a writ of attachment, the claimant shall refer to this section. An attachment may be issued pursuant to this section whether or not other forms of relief are demanded.
The initial hearing on the motion was continued because Plaintiffs had not filed proof of service showing the application (Judicial Council form AT-105), notice of application and hearing (Judicial Council form AT-115), and supporting declarations had been served. (Code Civ. Proc.,
1 The Court refers to the individuals by their first name for clarity. No disrespect is intended. 2 A temporary protective order (TPO) was issued against Defendants on October 20, 2025. The TPO expired on November 29, 2025. 3 “In 2007, the Legislature, acting on reports that the intent to encourage private claims by providing for enhanced remedies has largely been unrealized made available the remedy of prejudgment attachment as a way to facilitate quick recovery of losses in financial abuse cases. [Citations.]
The purpose of making pretrial attachment available to financial elder abuse actions claimants was to help claimants preserve the elder or dependent adult's assets wrongfully held by defendant until judgment is rendered. (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 611 (2007–2008 Reg. Sess.) as amended Mar. 26, 2007, p. 4; see Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Senate Bill No. 611 (2007–2008 Reg. Sess.) as amended May 31, 2007, p. 4 [‘The attachment procedure is a useful tool to prohibit the perpetrator from disposing of the elder or dependent adult's assets in his or her possession prior to final disposition of the case.’].)” (Royals v.
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?”
Lu (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 328, 347.)
§ 484.040.) Those documents, including the application, declarations of Gail and Dennis, the related exhibits and notice of the continued hearing date were subsequently served on Defendants’ counsel. 4 No opposition has been filed.
Plaintiffs seek the right to attach property in the total amount of $2,265,692.32, including estimated attorney fees of $565,998.15.
The total is broken down as follows: • $234,473.56 Gail economic damages • $332,091.16 Dennis economic damages • $1,133.129.44 Combined general damages (pain, suffering and emotional distress) • $565,998.15 Attorney Fees
Plaintiffs seek to attach Kelly’s interest in real property located at 575 Sandra Ct., Nipomo, California, APN 091-295-027, and “Any money in excess of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) on deposit in the name of Kelly Rojas at JP Morgan Chase Bank.” (App., ¶ 9.)
Plaintiffs financial elder abuse claim is one upon which an attachment may issue. The Application is supported by detailed declarations from the plaintiffs and the Court finds that plaintiffs have shown the probable validity of their claim. Plaintiffs state that the attachment is not sought for a purpose other than recovery of the claim upon which the attachment is based, and the Court sees no other purpose.
ORDER (PROPOSED)
The Court intends to grant the application subject to resolution of the following issues:
1) The Application is supported by the declarations of plaintiffs, but the application itself is not executed under oath as required by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 484.020.) Plaintiffs shall file a copy of their application with the declaration field executed by plaintiffs. The application shall otherwise be identical to the one already on file. 2) As noted above, Plaintiffs’ application seeks to attach money in excess of $1,000 on deposit at Chase Bank. (App., ¶ 9.c.) However, Plaintiffs’ proposed order omits the bank account. (Proposed Order, ¶¶ 2.g.(2), 3.c.) Plaintiffs shall submit a new proposed order if they intend to attach the bank account. 3) Before issuance of the writ of attachment, plaintiffs shall file an undertaking in the amount of $10,000. (Code Civ. Proc., § 489.210, 489.220(a).) The undertaking shall be included in the revised proposed order. (Order, ¶ 2.i.)
4 Counsel initially appeared for Defendants at a January 26, 2026 Case Management Conference.
2