Kemp Bros. Construction v. Titan Electric Corp.

“ ‘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.) 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 has ‘probable validity’ where it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will obtain a judgment against the defendant on that claim.” (§ 481.190.)

In this case, Kemp Bros. Construction, Inc. (Kemp), a prime contractor on two public works projects, sued its former subcontractor, Titan Electric Corporation (Titan), for breach of contract, and sought a pretrial right to attach order. The court found Kemp was entitled to the remedy, not because Kemp had affirmatively shown the probable validity of its claim or established other requisite criteria, as was its burden, but because Titan could not…