2:25-cv-03643
C.D. Cal.Sep 5, 2025Background
- NLMM (radiology practice management) contracted with AHSC to provide radiology services at two facilities beginning November 1, 2024; dispute arose after early termination and unpaid invoices.
- NLMM alleges nearly $1,000,000 owed, comprising: (1) fixed early monthly invoices for Vista ($475,599.24 remaining), (2) pass-through operational costs (claimed $464,759.04), and (3) $23,956 paid toward technology integration that NLMM says AHSC never reimbursed.
- NLMM sought a prejudgment writ of attachment under California law to secure its prospective judgment; AHSC counterclaimed for NLMM’s alleged material breaches.
- The Court applied California attachment standards: (1) claim must be a contractual money claim for a fixed/readily ascertainable amount, (2) probable validity of claim, (3) purpose limited to securing recovery, (4) amount to secure > $0.
- The Court concluded fixed monthly invoices were not "readily ascertainable" because the contract’s billing formula required later credits/true-ups (unknown variables), so attachment denied for that category.
- The Court granted attachment in part for pass-through labor and workstation costs (totaling $412,081.29), denied attachment for the technology-integration reimbursement claim because no contractual basis was shown; required a $10,000 undertaking before writ issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the monthly invoiced radiology payments are "fixed or readily ascertainable" under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 483.010(a) | Contract sets fixed initial monthly invoice amounts, so the owed sum is ascertainable by reference to invoices and contract | Contract billing formula requires credits for collections and semi-annual true-ups; those variables are unknown so amount is not readily ascertainable | Denied: amount not readily ascertainable because billing formula depends on unknown collection and interpretation counts |
| Whether pass-through operational costs (excess labor and extra workstations) are claims for a fixed/readily ascertainable amount | Contract proforma and §5.03 establish a formula (total costs minus proforma allotment); invoices support the claimed amounts | AHSC contests adequacy of NLMM’s supporting accounting and argues failure to receive bargained-for staffing benefit may negate entitlement | Granted as to pass-through labor and workstation costs: amounts are ascertainable and plaintiff showed probable validity |
| Whether NLMM may attach funds paid for technology integration (reimbursement of $23,956) | NLMM paid 50% per a memorandum and seeks equitable reimbursement because integration failed due to AHSC/Vista nonpayment | AHSC says it paid Oracle; memorandum is not incorporated into the contract and does not obligate AHSC to pay Oracle | Denied: NLMM has not shown a contractual entitlement to these funds; claim appears equitable, not contractual |
| Whether attachment is sought for an improper purpose and whether amount to secure > 0 | Attachment is sought solely to secure recovery of contractual claims; amount exceeds zero | AHSC impliedly argues motives or adequacy of proof but no evidence of improper purpose | Granted as to purpose (proper) and amount (>0); writ limited to validated pass-through amounts and conditioned on $10,000 undertaking |
Key Cases Cited
- Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974) (Rule 64 incorporates state prejudgment seizure remedies in federal court)
- Martin v. Aboyan, 148 Cal. App. 3d 826 (1983) (attachment is a harsh remedy and strictly construed against the applicant)
- Blastrac, N.A. v. Concrete Solutions & Supply, 678 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (elements and burden for California writ of attachment explained)
- Pos–A–Traction, Inc. v. Kelly–Springfield Tire Co., 112 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (courts strictly construe attachment requirements)
- Lewis v. Steifel, 98 Cal. App. 2d 648 (1950) (amount due must be ascertainable by reference to the contract)
- CIT Grp./Equip. Fin., Inc. v. Super DVD, Inc., 115 Cal. App. 4th 537 (2004) (contract need not show amount on its face but must provide a reasonable certain basis for computation)
- Walker v. Phillips, 205 Cal. App. 2d 26 (1962) (some uncertainty tolerated but not where unknown variables are essential to the contract formula)
- Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc., 166 Cal. App. 3d 1110 (1985) (probable validity standard: court assesses relative merits and probable outcome)
- Santa Clara Waste Water Co. v. Allied World Nat’l Assurance Co., 18 Cal. App. 5th 881 (2017) (attachment order does not adjudicate ultimate validity of claims)