Legal Opinion

Kemp Bros. Construction v. Titan Electric Corp.

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 23, 2007No. G035607PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

IKOLA, J.

“ ‘Attachment is an ancillary or provisional remedy to aid in the collection of a money demand by seizure of property in advance of trial and judgment.’ ” (Doyka v. Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1134, 1137 [285 Cal.Rptr. 14].) California’s Attachment Law (Code Civ. Proc., § 482.010 et seq.) 1 is purely statutory and is strictly construed. (Bank of America v. Salinas Nissan, Inc. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 260, 270 [254 Cal.Rptr. 748].) As germane here, a plaintiff seeking a right to attach order must show “ ‘the probable validity’ ” of its claim. (Id. at p. 271.) “A claim…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Lucido v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Rappleyea v. CampbellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Stark v. CokerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  4. People v. FrankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  5. Pacific Lumber Co. v. State Water Resources Control BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. Superior Court of Orange CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
  2. Hernandez v. LopezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  3. Goldstein v. Barak ConstructionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  4. Affan v. Portofino Cove Homeowners Assn.California Court of Appeal · 2010
  5. Diaz v. Prof'l Cmty. Mgmt., Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API