Because Provisional Remedies Are Gauged To Prevent Dissipation Of Assets, MFAA Notice Did Not Need To Be Brought Where Clients Were Aware Of These Rights.
In Winthrop v. Dameshek, Case No. G064192 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 16, 2025) (unpublished), a lower court issued around a $1.5 million ex parte pretrial attachment order in favor of counsel against former clients before a fees collection lawsuit was served and shortly after the action was filed, although there were emails indicating that the counsel would be serving the required MFAA arbitration notices. Former clients, after initiating their own MFAA arbitration and attempting to stay the underlying superior court case, filed motions to set aside the pretrial attachment orders and quash the attachment writs, requests which were denied by the lower court.
The 4/3 DCA, in a 3-0 opinion authored by Acting Presiding Justice Motoike, affirmed. No MFAA notice needed to be sent before seeking pretrial attachments to prevent dissipation of assets, because former clients knew of their MFAA rights as evidenced by their initiation of an arbitration—no prejudice occurred. In fact, this conclusion was supported by reasoning in Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Glen Music, 166 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1116-1118 (1985), a seminal pretrial attachment opinion. The appellate panel also decided the fee agreements were enforceable, such that they qualified as an action on contracts for purposes of pretrial attachment eligibility.