Lorber Industries of California v. Turbulence, Inc.

Opinion

WOODS, P. J.

—Turbulence, Inc., appeals from the judgment granting Lorber Industries of California (respondent) a right to attach order.

1

Appellant contends that the trial court’s order is erroneous as respondent did not establish the probable validity of its claim against appellant. We disagree, The record demonstrates sufficierlt evidence to support the trial court’s order. We therefore affirm.

Appellant is a corporation engaged in the distribution of wearing apparel. Respondent is a corporation engaged in manufacturing and printing textiles.

In 1984, the parties entered into a series of written agreements whereby appellant ordered fabrics from respondent. Respondent prepared and delivered the materials, usually to appellant’s authorized cutting service. These deliveries continued until December of 1984, when the company that finances respondent’s accounts receivable charged respondent $40,974.06 for appellant’s alleged failure to pay for goods received.

As a result of these “chargebacks,” respondent filed a complaint against appellant on February 12, 1985, for money damages, alleging that appellant owed in excess of $32,000 for goods delivered. After the lawsuit began, appellant paid respondent over $15,000 on its account.

On February 19, 1985, respondent filed a notice of application for a right to attach order and writ of attachment, setting the hearing date for March 7. On March 6, appellant filed a cross-complaint, alleging that the materiál was defective when received. Appellant filed its opposition to respondent’s application for a right to attach order on March 7, the day of the hearing.

2

[535]

The trial court found that respondent had established the probable validity of its claim under the attachment law. The application was granted in the sum of $18,107.86, with a required undertaking of $7,500. This appeal ensued.

Attachment is a prejudgment remedy which requires a court to make a preliminary determination of the merits of a dispute. It allows a creditor who has applied for an attachment following the statutory guidelines and established a prima facie claim to have a debtor’s assets seized and held until final adjudication at trial. (See generally 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Provisional Remedies, § 35 et seq.; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 1985) Provisional Remedies, § 9:458 et seq.)