Pacific Northwest Inc. v. Randhawa et al

Filing 42

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 1/12/10 ORDERING that Plaintiff's MOTION for Writ of Attachment 25 is DENIED without prejudice. Defendant's Request for hearing 40 is DENIED as MOOT. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Presently before the Court is a Motion by Plaintiff Paradise Northwest ("Plaintiff") requesting that this Court issue a writ of attachment on the property of Defendants Satvinder Palsingh Randhawa and Lorna Marie Randhawa ("Defendants") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64. /// /// /// /// 1 ----oo0oo---v. SATVINDER PALSINGH RANDHAWA, LORNA MARIE RANDHAWA dba GREAT EASTERN EXPORT & TRADING COMPANY, PARADISE NORTHWEST INC., No. 2:09-cv-02027-MCE-DAD Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

However, California's attachment statutes are strictly construed. See Jordan-Lyon Productions, Ltd. v. Cineplex Odeon

Corp., 29 Cal. App. 4th 1459, 1466 (1994); Hobbs v. Weiss, 73 Cal. App. 4th 76, 79-80 (1999); Vershbow v. Reiner, 231 Cal. App. 3d 879, 882-83 (1991); Nakasone v. Randall, 129 Cal. App. 3d 757, 761 (1982). The application and declarations submitted by

Plaintiff do not contain all statements required for the issuance of a writ of attachment. See Cal. Code of Civ. Pro. §§ 484.020,

485.210 (both requiring certain sworn statements to be included as part of an application). Since not all required sworn

statements have been made to the Court, Plaintiff's Motion for a Writ of Attachment (Docket No. 25) is DENIED without prejudice. Defendant's request for hearing (Docket No. 40) is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 12, 2010

_____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2