Fremont Bank v. Signorelli et al

Filing 37

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 35 RENEWED APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER AND WRIT OF ATTACHMENT. Initial Case Management Conference set for 1/22/2019 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 2, 4th Floor. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FREMONT BANK,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

ROBERT J SIGNORELLI, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 18-cv-04808-HSG
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
RENEWED APPLICATION FOR
RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER AND
WRIT OF ATTACHMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 35

12
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Fremont Bank’s renewed Application for a Right to

13
14

Attach Order, Writ of Attachment, and Temporary Protective Order, filed on December 21, 2018.

15

See Dkt. No. 35 (“Mot.”). The Court denied Plaintiff’s initial application because it sought an

16

order declaring a right to attach property not permitted under California law. See Dkt. No. 33 at 8.

17

Defendants—Robert Signorelli, both individually and as trustee of the Signorelli Family Living

18

Trust (“Family Trust”), Kathryn Signorelli as trustee of the Family Trust, and Signorelli Family,

19

L.P. (“the Partnership”)—filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s renewed motion on December 26,

20

2018. See Dkt. No. 36. Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court GRANTS

21

Plaintiff’s renewed application.1

22

//

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court finds the motion appropriate for disposition without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 71(b). Because the Court held a hearing on the initial motion to address whether Plaintiff satisfied
the statutory requirements for a right to attach order and writ of attachment, and whether
Defendants demonstrated a claim of exemption, California’s hearing requirements are satisfied.
See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 484.040 (“No order or writ shall be issued under this article except
after a hearing”); see also id. §§ 484.050–484.090 (detailing what findings a court must make after
a hearing before issuing a right to attach order and writ of attachment). And because a hearing is
unnecessary for this renewed motion, Plaintiff’s request for a temporary protective order pending
hearing on this application is moot.

I.

1

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed the pending application after the Court’s prior order denying Plaintiff’s

2

initial application for a right to attach order, writ of attachment, and temporary protective order.

4

See Dkt. No. 33 (“Right to Attach Order”).2 In the Right to Attach Order, the Court concluded

5

that Plaintiff met the statutory requirements for a right to attach order and writ of attachment but

6

that Plaintiff’s application was impermissibly broad under California law in the following

7

respects: (1) it sought to attach real property purportedly owned by Mr. Signorelli outside of

8

California; (2) it sought to attach Mr. Signorelli’s insurance policies; (3) it misidentified the

9

statutory basis for attachable property of the Partnership defendant; and (4) it appeared to treat the

10

Family Trust as a natural-person defendant and sought to attach property not attachable for a trust

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

defendant. Id. at 4–7. The Court also concluded that Defendants did not meet their burden of

12

proving a claim of exemption. Id. at 7–8.

13

II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s renewed application corrects the initial application’s errors identified in the

14
15

Right to Attach Order. Plaintiff’s renewed application also refers to property not previously

16

identified in the initial application. See Mot. at 3 (identifying Mr. Signorelli’s interest in Pine

17

Brooke Partners, PE, Bay City Partners, PE, and River Star Partners, as well as securities held in

18

two wealth management accounts). In opposition to the renewed application, Defendants argue

19

that (1) Plaintiff seeks to attach accounts that are exempt as “necessary for the support of a

20

defendant who is a natural person or the family of such defendant supported in whole or in part by

21

the defendant”; and (2) Plaintiff seeks to attach property that “clearly exceeds the amount

22

necessary to satisfy the amount to be secured by the attachment.” See Opp. at 2–6. Defendants

23

raised these same arguments in opposition to Plaintiff’s initial application. See Dkt. No. 29 at 3–4

24

(arguing Plaintiff sought to attach “far more than the outstanding obligation that Plaintiff claims it

25

is owed” and that “[i]t is critical that Defendant have their accounts unencumbered to alow [sic]

26
27
28

2

The Court detailed the factual background in its Right to Attach Order, and incorporates those
unchanged facts and the legal analysis from the Right to Attach Order here. In this order, the
Court only discusses the facts and legal standards as necessary to address issues raised in the
renewed motion and Defendants’ opposition.
2

1

them to pay personal bill [sic] and living expenses for things such as food gasoline, health

2

insurance and other basic everyday living expenses”). Separately, Defendants note that one newly

3

identified property—River Star Partners—“was sold and distributed in 2017.” Opp. at 4.

4

As to Defendants’ first argument, the Court previously found that Defendants did not make

5

an adequate showing to support the “necessary for support” exemption. See Right to Attach Order

6

at 7–8. And while Defendants present some financial information to support their opposition to

7

Plaintiff’s renewed application, see Dkt. No. 36-1, the showing is again inadequate, for the same

8

reasons discussed in the Right to Attach Order.
As to Defendants’ second argument, although Plaintiff’s application broadly identifies all

9

attachable property under California law, it only seeks attachment of property “in the amount of

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

$871,539.74.” See Mot. at 10. More important, Defendants themselves reference section 488.720,

12

which provides an adequate remedy to secure immediate release of excessive attachment, if that

13

were to occur. See Opp. at 2. “Section 488.720 authorizes a defendant to notice a motion for

14

return of property levied upon that is clearly of value in excess of that necessary to satisfy the

15

amount to be secured by the attachment.” N. Hollywood Marble Co. v. Superior Court, 204 Cal.

16

Rptr. 55, 61 (Ct. App. 1984). Should Plaintiff levy upon property with value clearly exceeding

17

$871,539.74, Defendants may submit a motion under section 488.720.
Last, the Court finds that a right to attach order and writ of attachment should not extend to

18
19

Mr. Signorelli’s interest in River Star Partners, based on Defendants’ representation that the

20

account “was sold and distributed in 2017.” See Opp. at 4.

21

III. CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s renewed application for a right to attach order and writ of

22
23

attachment in the amount of $871,539.74, except as to Mr. Signorelli’s interest in River Star

24

Partners.3 Plaintiff is DIRECTED to prepare proposed writs of attachment consistent with this

25
26
27
28

3

Before a writ of attachment can issue, the requesting party must post an appropriate undertaking
under section 489.210. California law sets the amount of the undertaking at $10,000, unless a
party objects to that amount. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 489.220. Plaintiff here posted a $10,000
undertaking, as noted in Plaintiff’s renewed motion. See Mot. at 10. Because Defendants did not
object to the $10,000 undertaking, the Court finds that Plaintiff has posted an appropriate
undertaking to secure the writ of attachment.
3

1

order—in the form approved by the state of California—for issuance by the Clerk of the Court.

2

The Court also SETS a further case management conference for January 22, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/2/2019
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4